03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes through the comments made by neighbours who subsequently encountered Ms. Pritchard and remarked on the posts. And there is the possibility, at least, of republication having been made on Facebook by Mr. Parks; he stated in one of his comments that he had shared her post on his own Facebook page. Whether he did in fact do so has not been proven. If he did, such was implicitly authorized by Ms. Van Nes. [84] All of this republication through Facebook was the natural and probable result of the defendant having posted her defamatory remarks. Ms. Van Nes is liable for all of the republication through Facebook. [85] This brings us to the question of the defendant’s liability for other forms of republication, specifically through email. Mr. Parks, after posting to Ms. Van Nes’ timeline his encouragement to spread the news, stating “why don’t we let the world know”, then republished by sending to Mr. Horton the email message attaching Ms. Van Nes’ photo of the mirror. Mr. Parks made editorial comments in that email, stating that the plaintiff was spying and referring to him as someone who would be understood by the public to be a potential paedophile; his editorialization merely summarized and made explicit the innuendo Ms. Van Nes had engaged in. [86] I make no finding as to whether Mr. Parks was justified in reporting the activity on Ms. Van Nes’ Facebook page to Mr. Pritchard’s school principal. That issue, of course, is not before me. The essential point, with respect to the liability of the defendant, is that through the email Mr. Parks was republishing the defendant’s own attacks on Mr. Pritchard’s character. [87] In my view, the implied authorization for republication that exists as a consequence of the nature of social media, and the structure of Facebook, is not limited to republication through the social media only. Ms. Van Nes ought to have known that her defamatory statements would spread, not only through Facebook. She is liable for republication through the email on that basis. [88] I further find that Mr. Parks’ statement, in his comment on the defendant’s Facebook page, “why don’t we let the world know”, coupled with his statement that he had shared her post on his own page, served as effective notice to Ms. Van Nes of Mr. Parks having an intention to republish. This basis for a finding of liability requires consideration of whether that statement actually came to the attention of Ms. Van Nes; or, if it did not, whether that knowledge is to be imputed to her. [89] I have no direct evidence as to whether the defendant actually viewed Mr. Parks’ “let the world know” comment, either when he posted it to her page, when she next visited her page to post a reply, or at any other time prior to the email being sent to Mr Horton. However, she certainly had ample opportunity to do so. The printouts of the Facebook comments in evidence indicate that it was about one hour after Mr. Parks posted his comments that the defendant next posted her own reply comment, “I just find it creepy…”. Given the social nature of Facebook, the defendant’s own statement to the court as to its importance in her life, and the fact that, in the period of only a little more than a day after posting her initial comments, she made nine distinct replies of her own to comments made by others, before and after Mr. Parks’ comments were posted, it is at least a fair assumption that Ms. Van Nes would have been actively scanning her Facebook page throughout this period to see what comments her “friends” had been making. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 16/26