03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes [35] They also both testified that their two sons, both of whom attended the school where their father teaches, are aware of the Facebook posts, and have appeared to be upset and worried as to the consequences. [36] Mr. Pritchard testified that he thinks it is unlikely that he could now get a job in another school district. He acknowledged that in fact he has no idea how far and wide the posts actually spread, but he spoke with conviction as to this belief, and I find the fact that he holds this belief to be an illustration of the terrible psychological impact this incident has had. [37] Ms. Pritchard testified as to the reaction of two neighbours, in particular. A couple of weeks after the posts, one neighbour made a remark to her about the plaintiff videotaping children; she denied it, and he replied, “I thought I knew Doug, but I guess I didn’t know the other side of him”. Another neighbour, a parent of one of her husband’s students, said to her a few months later that she had read the posts, and remarked, “You know, your husband could get fired”. [38] Mr. Horton confirmed Mr. Pritchard’s evidence of his withdrawal from the school programs, testifying that Mr. Pritchard has cancelled the rock band and jazz band, and reduced his commitment to the choir by 50%. Mr. Horton testified, not surprisingly, that allegations of impropriety towards students, even if unsubstantiated, can end a teacher’s career. Principals would avoid hiring a teacher against whom such allegations had been made, even if unsubstantiated. He testified that if he did not know Mr. Pritchard, he would not hire him, based on the kind of allegations that were made against him. [39] Prior to trial, Ms. Van Nes made no apology to the plaintiff or his family. She deleted the offending posts from her Facebook page, but she has made no positive form of retraction or apology. She has done nothing to counter the effect of her posts having “gone viral”. She insinuated in her cross-examination of Ms. Pritchard that she and her husband were unable to apologize because the Pritchards had asked them not to come onto their property; she gave no explanation as to why a letter could not have been sent. [40] Ms. Van Nes made some remarks at the conclusion of the trial. In respect of the nuisance claim she acknowledged that the dog was her responsibility; it ought to have been kept under better control, and she has now gotten rid of it. She said that the waterfalls had to be run continuously because the structure is a fish pond, but she said she would now do whatever needs to be done to respond to the plaintiff’s concerns. [41] As to the defamatory comments, she acknowledged that “defamation is obviously awful”, but she contended that she should not be held responsible for remarks made by others. She said that she was sorry that she used this way to “vent”, but said that social media is “a large part of my life”. She attempted to justify her belief that she was being watched by the plaintiff, but offered nothing more by way of explanation than her own suspicions or understanding. Her remarks to that effect were not testimony taken under oath and were not subject to being tested through crossexamination, and I give them no weight. [42] As with the private nuisance claim, given the entry of the default judgment I take the allegations in the Notice of Civil Claim with respect to the defamation claim to be unchallenged, and https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 9/26