The defamation trial of Barry Neufeld wrapped up Tuesday (Nov. 21) in Chilliwack Law Courts.
The six-day trial was the upshot of the civil lawsuit between trustee Carin Bondar and former trustee Neufeld.
Counsel for the plaintiff Susanna Quail and defence counsel Paul Jaffe presented arguments and cross examination of the two witnesses in turn.
The lawsuit alleged that former school trustee Neufeld defamed Bondar when he called her a 鈥渟triptease artist.鈥�
The 鈥渟triptease artist鈥� comment about Bondar by Neufeld came 24 minutes into an hour-long internet talk show aired on Sept. 21, 2022 from Action4Canada called the Empower Hour, which was replayed in court.
Quail framed the striptease remark for the court as 鈥渇alse, injurious and not defensible as fair comment.鈥�
It was hurtful and stressful for Bondar to have her reputation as an accomplished science educator wholly replaced with 鈥渁n entirely fictional narrative that she is an underdog striptease artist,鈥� Quail said in court, and general and aggravated damages are being sought.
Some people actually believed the remark, and told Bondar that they had voted for her even 鈥渄espite her past.鈥�
Quail clarified that Bondar鈥檚 PhD dissertation focused on animal reproduction and led to an interest in popular science education.
But 鈥渋t鈥檚 not actually about human sexuality,鈥� Quail underlined. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about animal biology.鈥� And it often uses pop culture to 鈥渆ngage viewers,鈥� she said.
The online content the science educator has produced 鈥渋s mildly titillating in a silly way,鈥� Quail said.
Bondar鈥檚 work has been featured worldwide on the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, National Geographic, Scientific American and Animal One, and racked up millions of views.
Quail took the question to Neufeld: 鈥淎nd it was your honest belief that the most accurate way to describe her was as a striptease artist?鈥� referring to the Sept. 21, 2022 appearance on the Empower Hour.
Neufeld responded: 鈥淎mong other things, she鈥檚 an eminent scientist who also happens to be a striptease artist.鈥�
Quail pointed out that he didn鈥檛 mention any of those other qualities.
He called the video 鈥渧ulgar鈥� and clarified that on the broadcast all he said was: 鈥淩ichard Procee had lost the byelection to that striptease artist.鈥�
鈥淚 didn鈥檛 mention her by name,鈥� Neufeld testified.
Asked if it was his view that the Organisms Do Evolve video was 鈥渁 striptease video,鈥� he replied: 鈥淣ot primarily. It was a parody of Miley Cyrus song.鈥� The main purpose 鈥渨as to swing back and forth naked on a wrecking ball singing 鈥業 came in like a wrecking ball.鈥欌��
Then was it something else 鈥減rimarily?鈥� Quail asked.
鈥淵es. It was a mocking insult of people who believe in creation,鈥� Neufeld said.
鈥淪o you don鈥檛 think she鈥檚 a striptease artist?鈥� Quail later asked.
鈥淪he was on that particular occasion,鈥� Neufeld stated.
Quail said Bondar was subjected to a 鈥渉ostile, argumentative, demeaning and unnecessarily lengthy cross examination鈥� by the opposing counsel.
鈥淒efendant鈥檚 counsel asked Dr. Bondar questions that gratuitously falsely described her performance in the Organisms Do Evolve video as involving writhing on the floor, simulating orgasms and more.鈥�
Jaffe cross-examined Bondar for almost three days before putting Neufeld on the witness stand.
He contended Neufeld鈥檚 use of the descriptor 鈥渟triptease artist鈥� was an 鈥渉onestly held belief鈥� mentioned in passing during the Zoom meeting of his followers.
Jaffe suggested the 鈥渃ontroversy鈥� about Bondar鈥檚 work pre-dated Neufeld鈥檚 comment, but she insisted it started after the comment.
Jaffe said during his cross that Bondar resisted conceding 鈥渙bvious facts鈥� like the ongoing rift in the Chilliwack School District over SOGI 123.
Jaffe described Bondar under cross as 鈥渆vasive, argumentative, dismissive, contradictory and confrontational.鈥�
鈥淎nd so my friend is absolutely right. It was a long, difficult cross examination.鈥�
The three defences that counsel for Neufeld filed in connection with the suit were: justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
Neufeld was asked why he posted Bondar鈥檚 video, Organisms do Evolve, on his social media.
鈥淲ell, I thought it was a matter of public interest. I didn鈥檛 think the public should know that this was an appropriate behaviour for anyone involved in the governance or supervision of children,鈥� Neufeld testified.
It was because trustees have to maintain the 鈥渉ighest morality,鈥� he noted.
The few frames of her appearing nude 鈥渨as probably not as disturbing as, as some of the other lewd acts that were being performed in that video,鈥� Jaffe said.
Neufeld added: 鈥淚 found all those images very disturbing.鈥�
He later said regarding Bondar鈥檚 work: 鈥淚 have three adult daughters, an adult stepdaughter and a granddaughter.
鈥淚 do not think Carin Bondar鈥檚 behaviour online is a positive example for women. I honour and respect women, and I believe her portrayals of femininity degrades women.鈥�
Quail said: 鈥淚n this case, Mr. Neufeld pled justification and relies on the defence of justification knowing that his remark about Dr. Bondar was false and misleading.鈥�
Bondar feels that her 鈥測ears of hard work and accomplishments鈥� as a scientist and science educator have been erased, her lawyer noted.
Bondar said she felt subjected to a 鈥渢irade of misogyny that would not stop鈥� and said it why women don鈥檛 often dive into politics.
鈥淒r. Bondar testified that she now has to contend with a new identity in the public realm,鈥� Quail added.
Closing arguments were heard Tuesday before Justice Michael Stephens, the presiding judge, and his decision on the matter will be forthcoming.
RELATED:
RELATED:
