B.C. school trustee loses appeal of $45K defamation award over ‘strip-tease’ remark

Barry Neufeld, a former school trustee in Chilliwack, B.C., is shown in a photo from his Facebook page.

B.C.’s highest court has upheld a judgment ordering controversial former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld to pay a former political rival $45,000 for defamation.

Neufeld described Dr. Carin Bondar as a “strip-tease artist” back in September 2022, while they were both running for re-election to the Chilliwack school board, and was found liable for defamation last year.

The former trustee appealed the decision, repeatedly arguing his remark was “innocuous” – but a three-member panel from the B.C. Court of Appeal disagreed.

“This is not a case of someone being punished for sharing their sincerely‑held beliefs,” wrote Justice David Harris, in a decision posted online this week.

“It is also not a case about the underlying political disagreements between Mr. Neufeld and Dr. Bondar.”

Instead, Harris wrote, the comment amounted to a “demeaning denigration” of Bondar’s reputation.

Neufeld’s remark was a reference to an educational music video that Bondar – a university adjunct professor – had made parodying the Miley Cyrus song “Wrecking Ball,” which featured a brief shot of the doctor nude, from the back, wearing only a pair of boots.

Neufeld also repeated the defamation in a newsletter in February 2023, months after Bondar had launched her lawsuit case against him, according to the decision.

No errors in judgment

In his original decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Stephens rejected all of Neufeld’s defences, including his argument that the comment was substantially true and therefore justified under the law.

The former trustee pointed to the definition of “strip tease” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary – as an “act or dance in which a person gradually removes her clothing piece by piece in a seductive or provocative manner especially to the accompaniment of music” – but Stephens noted Bondar was not shown removing any clothing in her parody video.

The Appeal Court did not find any errors in his judgement.

The panel also found Stephens was correct to dismiss Neufeld’s claims that his remark was defensible under the legal principles of fair comment and qualified privilege.

On the decision to award Bondar “modest” as opposed to “nominal” damages – which included $35,000 for general damages to her reputation, plus $10,000 in punitive damages as a deterrent against Neufeld’s conduct – the Appeal Court ruled the trial judge’s decision “reflected careful and measured consideration” of the facts and relevant law.

“I see no basis on which to interfere with the judge’s award,” Harris wrote. “I would dismiss the appeal.”