The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has awarded $85,000 in damages to a university professor who was the target of a prolonged cyberbullying campaign by a former student and romantic partner. The case involved disturbing allegations of sexual abuse and harassment, many of which the court found to be baseless.
The applicant, identified as J.F. due to a publication ban protecting minors, had filed a claim against B.A., his former student and romantic partner. J.F. sought damages under the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, which provides civil remedies for cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
Justice Gabriel found that the respondent, B.A., had engaged in malicious online communications about J.F. over the course of several years, repeatedly accusing him of sexual abuse, racism, and predatory behaviour towards Indigenous women. The judge noted that B.A. also posted the name and image of J.F.’s young daughter, further intensifying the harm caused by the online attacks.
“The posts were not only likely to cause harm to the applicant’s health or well-being, but they were maliciously intended to do so,” Justice Gabriel wrote. He found that the communications met the legal definition of cyberbullying under the Act, as they were grossly offensive, indecent, and intended to harm J.F.’s reputation.
Allegations of abuse and racism
The relationship between J.F. and B.A. began in 2019 and ended that same year. Following the breakup, B.A., who describes herself as an Inuk artist and language teacher, took to social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter (now X), where she has a significant following, to make several serious allegations against J.F.
According to the court, B.A. posted content accusing J.F. of being a sexual predator, a pedophile, and someone who sexually exploited Indigenous women. In one post, she wrote, “He is a predator. He just does not agree with that view. I tried to seek out help from authorities but I was not believed.” B.A. also claimed that J.F. was “identifying as a fraudulent Indigenous person to take advantage of other Indigenous women in the community.”
Justice Gabriel noted that the accusations escalated, including allegations that J.F. was sexually abusing his daughter at his workplace and that his employer was complicit in the behaviour. In one post, B.A. stated, “[J.F.] sexually abuses his daughter upon his employer’s premises, and his employer does not care.”
The judge condemned B.A.’s actions, noting that she published J.F.’s daughter’s name and picture alongside some of the allegations. “It is a terrible thing to attempt to destroy the life of a mature adult. But to have so little regard for a small child…is incomprehensible,” Justice Gabriel wrote.
Legal framework and damages awarded
The court’s decision focused on whether B.A.’s actions met the criteria for cyberbullying under the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act. Justice Gabriel applied a four-part test that required proof that the communications were electronic, that they were direct or indirect, that they caused harm or were likely to cause harm, and that the respondent acted with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the harm caused.
“The impugned posts obviously meet this criterion,” the judge said, adding that the public nature of the posts, made to B.A.’s thousands of followers, demonstrated both direct and indirect communication intended to reach J.F.
The court awarded $70,000 in general damages to J.F., who had sought that amount. Justice Gabriel acknowledged that the damages could have been much higher, considering the severity of the posts and the impact on J.F.’s health and reputation. In addition, the court awarded $15,000 in punitive damages, citing the “utmost extremity of malice” displayed by B.A. in involving J.F.’s daughter in her online attacks.
“The statutory criteria have been met,” the judge concluded, noting that the case satisfied the requirements for both general and punitive damages under the Act.
No defences applicable
B.A. did not present any substantial defences to the court. While she claimed that she believed her statements to be true, Justice Gabriel rejected this, pointing out that a belief in the truth of defamatory statements is not sufficient to avoid liability. The judge also dismissed B.A.’s argument that her actions were protected under the Limitation of Actions Act, as the posts were part of a continuous series of acts that extended into 2023.
Justice Gabriel further noted that B.A. failed to make out any of the defences available under the Act, such as fair comment or responsible journalism. He found no evidence that J.F. had consented to the publication of any of the posts or that B.A. was acting in the public interest.
Removal of posts ordered
In addition to the damages, the court ordered that all posts made by B.A. about J.F. be taken down and disabled immediately. B.A. was also prohibited from making any further communications about J.F., and she is barred from contacting him directly or indirectly in the future.
Justice Gabriel reminded the parties of the publication ban in place to protect the identities of the children involved, warning that any violation of the ban could result in significant legal consequences.
With this ruling, J.F. has been awarded significant relief, but as the judge noted, “the internet will never forget.” While the posts may be removed, the reputational harm caused by the online campaign will likely linger.
For more information, see J.F. v. B.A., 2024 NSSC 275 (CanLII).
