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 㽶Ƶֱstriptease artist.㽶Ƶֱ
The 㽶Ƶֱstriptease artist㽶Ƶֱ 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 㽶Ƶֱfalse, injurious and not defensible as fair comment.㽶Ƶֱ
It was hurtful and stressful for Bondar to have her reputation as an accomplished science educator wholly replaced with 㽶Ƶֱan entirely fictional narrative that she is an underdog striptease artist,㽶Ƶֱ 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 㽶Ƶֱdespite her past.㽶Ƶֱ
Quail clarified that Bondar㽶Ƶֱs PhD dissertation focused on animal reproduction and led to an interest in popular science education.
But 㽶Ƶֱit㽶Ƶֱs not actually about human sexuality,㽶Ƶֱ Quail underlined. 㽶ƵֱIt㽶Ƶֱs about animal biology.㽶Ƶֱ And it often uses pop culture to 㽶Ƶֱengage viewers,㽶Ƶֱ she said.
The online content the science educator has produced 㽶Ƶֱis mildly titillating in a silly way,㽶Ƶֱ Quail said.
Bondar㽶Ƶֱs 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: 㽶ƵֱAnd it was your honest belief that the most accurate way to describe her was as a striptease artist?㽶Ƶֱ referring to the Sept. 21, 2022 appearance on the Empower Hour.
Neufeld responded: 㽶ƵֱAmong other things, she㽶Ƶֱs an eminent scientist who also happens to be a striptease artist.㽶Ƶֱ
Quail pointed out that he didn㽶Ƶֱt mention any of those other qualities.
He called the video 㽶Ƶֱvulgar㽶Ƶֱ and clarified that on the broadcast all he said was: 㽶ƵֱRichard Procee had lost the byelection to that striptease artist.㽶Ƶֱ
㽶ƵֱI didn㽶Ƶֱt mention her by name,㽶Ƶֱ Neufeld testified.
Asked if it was his view that the Organisms Do Evolve video was 㽶Ƶֱa striptease video,㽶Ƶֱ he replied: 㽶ƵֱNot primarily. It was a parody of Miley Cyrus song.㽶Ƶֱ The main purpose 㽶Ƶֱwas to swing back and forth naked on a wrecking ball singing 㽶ƵֱI came in like a wrecking ball.㽶Ƶֱ㽶Ƶֱ
Then was it something else 㽶Ƶֱprimarily?㽶Ƶֱ Quail asked.
㽶ƵֱYes. It was a mocking insult of people who believe in creation,㽶Ƶֱ Neufeld said.
㽶ƵֱSo you don㽶Ƶֱt think she㽶Ƶֱs a striptease artist?㽶Ƶֱ Quail later asked.
㽶ƵֱShe was on that particular occasion,㽶Ƶֱ Neufeld stated.
Quail said Bondar was subjected to a 㽶Ƶֱhostile, argumentative, demeaning and unnecessarily lengthy cross examination㽶Ƶֱ by the opposing counsel.
㽶ƵֱDefendant㽶Ƶֱs 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.㽶Ƶֱ
Jaffe cross-examined Bondar for almost three days before putting Neufeld on the witness stand.
He contended Neufeld㽶Ƶֱs use of the descriptor 㽶Ƶֱstriptease artist㽶Ƶֱ was an 㽶Ƶֱhonestly held belief㽶Ƶֱ mentioned in passing during the Zoom meeting of his followers.
Jaffe suggested the 㽶Ƶֱcontroversy㽶Ƶֱ about Bondar㽶Ƶֱs work pre-dated Neufeld㽶Ƶֱs comment, but she insisted it started after the comment.
Jaffe said during his cross that Bondar resisted conceding 㽶Ƶֱobvious facts㽶Ƶֱ like the ongoing rift in the Chilliwack School District over SOGI 123.
Jaffe described Bondar under cross as 㽶Ƶֱevasive, argumentative, dismissive, contradictory and confrontational.㽶Ƶֱ
㽶ƵֱAnd so my friend is absolutely right. It was a long, difficult cross examination.㽶Ƶֱ
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㽶Ƶֱs video, Organisms do Evolve, on his social media.
㽶ƵֱWell, I thought it was a matter of public interest. I didn㽶Ƶֱt think the public should know that this was an appropriate behaviour for anyone involved in the governance or supervision of children,㽶Ƶֱ Neufeld testified.
It was because trustees have to maintain the 㽶Ƶֱhighest morality,㽶Ƶֱ he noted.
The few frames of her appearing nude 㽶Ƶֱwas probably not as disturbing as, as some of the other lewd acts that were being performed in that video,㽶Ƶֱ Jaffe said.
Neufeld added: 㽶ƵֱI found all those images very disturbing.㽶Ƶֱ
He later said regarding Bondar㽶Ƶֱs work: 㽶ƵֱI have three adult daughters, an adult stepdaughter and a granddaughter.
㽶ƵֱI do not think Carin Bondar㽶Ƶֱs behaviour online is a positive example for women. I honour and respect women, and I believe her portrayals of femininity degrades women.㽶Ƶֱ
Quail said: 㽶ƵֱIn this case, Mr. Neufeld pled justification and relies on the defence of justification knowing that his remark about Dr. Bondar was false and misleading.㽶Ƶֱ
Bondar feels that her 㽶Ƶֱyears of hard work and accomplishments㽶Ƶֱ as a scientist and science educator have been erased, her lawyer noted.
Bondar said she felt subjected to a 㽶Ƶֱtirade of misogyny that would not stop㽶Ƶֱ and said it why women don㽶Ƶֱt often dive into politics.
㽶ƵֱDr. Bondar testified that she now has to contend with a new identity in the public realm,㽶Ƶֱ 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: