03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes [69] In the next sentence of the initial post, she reinforces the implied meaning of the foregoing by highlighting the “24/7” videotaping of her children. She then references what she purportedly understood to be his desire that she move the play centre out of the covenanted forest area – which would, it appears, have the effect of moving it closer to his property line – as if moving the children closer, so they could be observed, was his goal. [70] In Ms. Van Nes’ first reply to her “friends”’ comments, she says she would refuse to put her kids closer to “this nutters yard”, again underscoring the importance of keeping children away. She says “ewe” at the thought of her oldest child attending music class with him – an expression of disgust and revulsion. What is implied by this expression is that the thought of this man, who she believed had some kind of inappropriate interest in children, being near or close to her child was disgusting and disturbing to her. Underlying that expression, “ewe”, is her assumption that this is how her remark would be understood. [71] In her final reply comment, and after almost all the more inflammatory replies by her “friends” had been made, Ms. Van Nes makes a failed attempt of softening the impact of her defamatory remarks. She said, “…Not saying he’s 100% a dirty birdy, just a creep”. This comment, I find, only served to reinforce the defamation through innuendo. [72] The finding of the defendant’s remarks having defamatory meaning by innuendo is also supported by the explicitly defamatory nature of the comments made by her “friends”. They clearly understood her meaning. [73] Ms. Van Nes clearly identified Mr. Pritchard as the subject of her comments. She identified him by his first name, his occupation, the school and the school district in which he works, and by his position as her next-door neighbour. [74] Without question, I find that the defendant’s remarks, by their ordinary and natural meaning taken together, and by innuendo, were defamatory in meaning that Mr. Pritchard was a paedophile and was unfit to teach. [75] Ms. Van Nes’ defamatory comments were published to at least the 37 individuals who replied to her post. They were potentially, depending on notification settings, communicated to all of the defendant’s 2,059 “friends”. They were also potentially communicated to “friends” of the 37 individuals who made replies, such as Ms. Regnier. And they were, given Ms. Van Nes’ failure to use any privacy settings, viewable to the whole universe of Facebook users. [76] I find Ms. Van Nes liable in damages for her publication of her own defamatory remarks. Liability for Republication [77] The plaintiff alleges having been injured as a result of the defamations and all repetitions and republications, and submits that Ms. Van Nes is liable for same. [78] The law of liability for republication of defamatory statements is as stated by Professor Brown in his text, The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2nd ed. (Scarborough: Carswell, 1994), at 348-350: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 14/26