Opening arguments in the defamation trial between Carin Bondar and Barry Neufeld were heard in Chilliwack Law Courts Tuesday (Nov. 14).
The civil lawsuit alleges former school trustee Neufeld defamed Bondar, a school trustee, when he called her a 鈥渟triptease artist鈥� during an internet talk show in September 2022 broadcast by Action4Canada called the Empower Hour.
鈥淭his statement was false, injurious and not defensible as fair comment,鈥� said Bondar鈥檚 lawyer, Susanna Quail, in her opening statements.
It was day one of a six-day trial in B.C. Supreme Court in Chilliwack presided over by Justice Michael Stephens.
鈥淒r. Bondar is not a striptease artist,鈥� Quail said. 鈥淪he is an accomplished science communicator and educator and a school trustee.
鈥淭he defendant asserts that Dr. Bondar had explicit and highly sexualized public performances widely famed by her on a YouTube channel over a number of years.
鈥淎nd we say the evidence will show that that鈥檚 not true,鈥� the lawyer said.
The science education video in which Bondar appears to be swinging on a wrecking ball while scantily clad was not 鈥渟exually charged entertainment,鈥� Quail argued.
The video about evolution and natural selection was created by Bondar in 2014. It was a parody of the pop hit Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus, and Bondar鈥檚 video was called 鈥淥rganisms do Evolve.鈥�
In the video, Bondar is wearing what the pop superstar wore 鈥� a white tank top, underwear and boots. The video was filmed almost shot for shot in similar fashion, and for a brief moment on-screen, the plaintiff appeared nude in several frames.
Bondar鈥檚 PhD dissertation focused on animal reproduction and led to her ongoing interest in popular science education.
鈥淲hile her work often draws on human sexual behaviour, it鈥檚 not actually about human sexuality,鈥� Quail told the court.
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 that Bondar has produced 鈥渋s mildly titillating in a silly way,鈥� Quail said.
Bondar鈥檚 work has been featured on the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, National Geographic, Scientific American and Animal One.
Quail said the court would determine if the striptease comment could be considered 鈥渇air comment鈥� and that would likely form the 鈥渞eal test of where this case lies.鈥�
Bondar is alleging that 鈥淢r. Neufeld defamed her by this comment and seeks damages,鈥� the lawyer said, adding that evidence would show general and aggravated damages were appropriate.
Quail said Neufeld 鈥渉as not only refused to retract or apologize for the remark, but repeated it and included it in his fundraising materials,鈥� which she said was 鈥渙utrageous and malicious鈥� in that it increased the plaintiff鈥檚 mental distress.
In terms of the legal framework, three elements have to be established in a claim of defamation under the law, Quail said.
One of them focuses on injury to someone鈥檚 reputation, in that they 鈥渢end to lower the plaintiff鈥檚 reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.鈥�
Bondar鈥檚 lawyer said that all three would be 鈥渨ell-established.鈥�
Neufeld has pleaded 鈥渏ustification,鈥� among three defences, but Quail said the evidence will show 鈥渉e knew full well鈥� that Bondar is not a striptease artist.
鈥淭his is simply not who Dr. Bondar is or what she has achieved,鈥� the lawyer said.
The three defences Neufeld filed in connection with the suit were: justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
鈥淣one of these defences can succeed,鈥� Quail said.
She told the court Bondar would testify about 鈥渉ow hurtful and frustrating鈥� it was to have her reputation as an accomplished science educator 鈥渞eplaced with an entirely fictional narrative that she is an underdog striptease artist, scrabbling her way to public office,鈥� Quail said.
In conclusion, Quail said the libel case is 鈥渘ot about balancing the public interest鈥� and it isn鈥檛 about 鈥渁 political contest鈥� over SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) 123.
鈥淭his case is only about defamation,鈥� she said.
鈥淭his case isn鈥檛 about Mr. Neufeld鈥檚 personal political agenda. This trial is not a social movement showdown, it鈥檚 not about culture wars.
鈥淭his is actually a very straightforward application of the law of defamation which exists to protect reputations from exactly the kind of harm Mr. Neufeld has inflicted and continues to do so.鈥�
Neufeld鈥檚 lawyer, Paul Jaffe, began his cross examination Tuesday, and it continued Wednesday. The trial is expected to run until at least Tuesday.
RELATED:
RELATED:
