03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes [Citations omitted.] [122] The seriousness of Ms. Van Nes’ defamatory Facebook post, her replies, and the comments of her “friends” cannot be overstated. An accusation of paedophilic behaviour must be the single most effective means of destroying a teacher’s reputation and career, not to mention the devastating effect on their life and individual dignity. The identity of Mr. Pritchard is especially relevant in this case. Through his engagement in extra-curricular activities he occupies a position of trust as a music teacher for children. Through hard work and dedication to his students, he had earned the community’s respect and admiration, as clearly established on the evidence. I find that he now faces the challenge of repairing the damage Ms. Van Nes has caused, if that is even possible at this point. [123] The vehicle through which Ms. Van Nes chose to publicize her defamatory accusations provided the court with further evidence of the damage to his reputation; that there were individual replies from 37 of Ms. Van Nes’ Facebook “friends” within less than 24 hours clearly documents the quick degradation of Mr. Pritchard’s estimation in the eyes of others. [124] To say the least, recovering from false allegations of impropriety against children will not be easy for Mr. Pritchard. It is to be hoped that these reasons for judgment will assist. But the taint of suspicion is not easily expunged, and the reality is that regaining the stellar reputation he once enjoyed will not be quick or easy. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, the pervading nature of defamation and its long term impact was succinctly stated: [166] …A defamatory statement can seep into the crevasses of the subconscious and lurk there ever ready to spring forth and spread its cancerous evil. The unfortunate impression left by a libel may last a lifetime. Seldom does the defamed person have the opportunity of replying and correcting the record in a manner that will truly remedy the situation. [125] I have no difficulty in concluding that the defendant’s conduct had a devastating impact on the plaintiff, which continues to this day and will continue into the future. That factor, in and of itself, merits a significant damages award. [126] The plaintiff asks that I go further and award an even higher amount of general damages by reasons of aggravation. I am asked to find that the defamatory material itself supports the conclusion that the defendant’s conduct was motivated by actual malice aimed at ruining his professional and personal reputation. [127] An increase in the award for general damages on account of aggravation must be based on a finding that the defendant was motivated by actual malice, established through intrinsic or extrinsic evidence: as stated in Hill: 190. If aggravated damages are to be awarded, there must be a finding that the defendant was motivated by actual malice, which increased the injury to the plaintiff, either by spreading further afield the damage to the reputation of the plaintiff, or by increasing the mental distress and humiliation of the plaintiff … . The malice may be established by intrinsic evidence derived from the libellous statement itself and the circumstances of its publication, or by extrinsic evidence pertaining to the surrounding circumstances which demonstrate that the defendant was motivated by an unjustifiable intention to injure the plaintiff. [Citations omitted.] https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 24/26