03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes station to file a complaint. [31] That evening, as Mr. Pritchard testified, Ms. Van Nes’ husband came to their door. Mr. Pritchard asked him to leave their property; his response was, “What’s she done now?” Again, Mr. Pritchard asked him to leave, and he did. A short time later a police officer came by the plaintiff’s home in a cruiser to take the details of the complaint. All of the offending posts on Ms. Van Nes’ page could still be viewed on Ms. Pritchard’s phone just before the officer arrived, but by the time they attempted to access the page again to show the content to the officer, the posts were no longer accessible, having apparently been deleted. That was at about 8:30pm on June 10, 2014. The posts had been on Ms. Van Nes’ Facebook page for roughly 27½ hours. [32] However, the deletion apparently accomplished nothing in respect of the copies of Ms. Van Nes’ posts that had by this time proliferated over Facebook. This would have included copies that made their way onto the Facebook pages of the defendant’s “friends” who provided comments, and potentially other “friends” of hers whose own pages were set up to receive notifications of posts made by her. Copies also would also have spread to the pages of any others with whom the initial posts had been “shared”, or persons such as Ms. Regnier who had had their Facebook page configured to receive posted comments of the defendant’s “friends”. Mr. Pritchard testified that the following day, June 11, after Ms. Van Nes had deleted the comments from her own page, Ms. Regnier returned to the school and showed Mr. Pritchard that Ms. Van Nes’ initial post with the photograph of the mirror, and the comment that he was videotaping her kids “24/7” could still be seen on Ms. Regnier’s own Facebook page. The phrase “gone viral” would seem to be an apt description. [33] Mr. Pritchard testified as to the impact this incident has had. There was at least one child of one of Ms. Van Nes’ “friends” who commented on the posts, who was removed from his music programs. The next time he organized a band trip out of town and sought parent volunteers to be chaperones, he was overwhelmed with offers; that had never previously been the case. He feels that he has lost the trust of parents and students. He dreads public performances with the school music groups. Mr. Pritchard finds he is now constantly guarded in his interactions with students; for example, whereas before he would adjust a student’s fingers on an instrument, he now avoids any physical contact to shield himself from allegations of impropriety. He has cut back on his participation in extra-curricular activities. He has lost his love of teaching; he no longer finds it fun, and he wishes he had the means to get out of the profession. He considered responding to a private school’s advertisement for a summer employment position but did not because of a concern that the posts were still “out there”. Knowing that at least one prominent member of the community saw the posts and commented on them, he feels awkward, humiliated and stressed when out in public, wondering who might know about the Facebook posts and whether they believe the lies that were told about him. [34] Mr. Pritchard also testified as to how frightened he was that some of the posts suggested he should be confronted or threatened. Mr. Pritchard and his wife both testified that a short time after the posts, their doorbell was rung late at night, and their car was “keyed” in their driveway, an 80 cm scratch that cost approximately $2,000 to repair. His wife also testified to finding large rocks on their driveway and their front lawn. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 8/26