03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes [26] It would appear that this Mr. Parks took it upon himself to attempt to shame the plaintiff, as on the morning of June 10, 2014, the day after the initial post by the defendant, a “Rick Parks” sent an email message to the plaintiff’s school principal. The email attaches the image, from Ms. Van Nes’ initial post, of the mirror, with the superimposed print. The email was date stamped as having been sent at 11:28 a.m., which would appear to correspond to approximately an hour to an hourand-a-half after the two “Rick Parks” posts were made on Ms. Van Nes’ page. It bears the subject line, “Subject: Mr. Doug Pritchard”. It reads: Hello Dexter I am just letting you know that this photo is making its way around facebook as we speak. The photo shows a picture of one you teacher’s homes. The photo also shows that he has set up mirrors and a video camera in order to spy on his neighbours. I have no idea why he would do this but people are coming to their own conclusions very quickly. (apparently he has issues with their dog) The home on which he is spying contains small children. these children will be attending your school in the very near future and will be forced to take music with Doug. I hope you can imagine how unsettled that makes the mother of these children feel. I think you have a very small window of opportunity before someone begins to publicly declare that your school has a potential paedophile as a staff member. They are not going to care about his reasons – they care that kids may be in danger. I am not sure how you want to or can deal with this but it is at your doorstep whether you like it or not. I have no connection to your school or to Doug. I do know the neighbor. I wish you all the best as you deal with this. [27] It bears repeating that contrary to what Mr. Parks said in his email, the photo posted on the defendant’s Facebook page did not show that the plaintiff had set up mirrors and a video camera to spy on the defendant. [28] On the afternoon of June 10, 2014, a member of the community, Ms. Regnier, went to the school to tell Mr. Pritchard about the posts. Ms. Regnier’s two children had been students of the plaintiff and had participated in his extra-curricular band and drum line programs. She felt that he was an excellent teacher, someone who, as she testified, had brought the music program to life. She gave evidence that she went to the school to tell Mr. Pritchard there were posts on Facebook accusing him of paedophilic-like behaviour. Ms. Regnier did not know Ms. Van Nes; she testified that some of her own “friends” had commented on Ms. Van Nes’ post, and their comments showed up in Ms. Regnier’s “news feed”. She recognized the neighbour being described in the posts as Mr. Pritchard. She perceived that Mr. Pritchard was being accused of being a paedophile. Ms. Regnier accompanied Mr. Pritchard to the office of the school principal, Mr. Horton, to inform him. [29] Mr. Horton testified that had, by this time, received Mr. Parks’ email. Mr. Horton contacted his superior, who, Mr. Horton testified, seemed shocked, asking Mr. Horton whether he believed the allegations; Mr. Horton said he did not, although he testified that he was concerned as the allegations reflected poorly on him and the school. He testified that if the allegations were substantiated, Mr. Pritchard would have had his teaching license revoked. [30] Mr. Pritchard then telephoned his wife, who accessed Ms. Van Nes’ Facebook page and printed out the posts and Ms. Van Nes’ “friends” list. The plaintiff and his wife attended at a police https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 7/26