The Ontario Superior Court has dismissed a $10.35 million defamation and negligence lawsuit brought against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) by a former professor and his spouse, ruling the broadcaster’s reporting on sexual harassment findings at Crandall University related to matters of public interest.
The court granted CBC’s motion under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP provisions, which are designed to prevent lawsuits that unduly restrict freedom of expression on issues affecting the public. The plaintiffs, a former professor and his spouse, had alleged the reporting defamed him and caused her mental suffering.
Background to the lawsuit
The professor had been employed at Crandall University in Moncton until his termination in November 2023. That dismissal followed an independent investigation which found he had sexually harassed a student, engaged in persistent inappropriate comments toward women, and sent a female student about 100 pages of inappropriate emails over several months.
The university summarized the investigator’s findings in a news release announcing the dismissal. Media outlets, including CBC, reported on the results.
CBC’s coverage included online articles, a broadcast segment on The National, and a radio interview. The reporting described the allegations and findings at Crandall and referenced information from the professor’s prior employment at Regent College in Vancouver, where confidential settlement terms had restricted disclosure of an earlier investigation.
The spouse of the professor also sued, alleging negligence by CBC.
Court finds reporting was in public interest
The court determined CBC’s reporting related to issues of genuine public concern, particularly sexual harassment in post-secondary institutions. “The expression in this case involves allegations and findings of sexual misconduct by a professor towards students in a Canadian educational institution,” the court wrote, adding that such matters affect students, families, alumni, and administrators.
The judge rejected arguments that the case was a private employment dispute, noting that other media outlets also reported on the Crandall investigation and that the professor himself had issued public statements.
Claims found to have some merit but outweighed by public interest
The court acknowledged that certain CBC reports carried defamatory meaning, including suggestions that the professor was terminated after substantiated findings of harassment, was the subject of a prior investigation at Regent, and had not been forthcoming during questioning. However, it concluded the public interest in protecting CBC’s expression outweighed the harm claimed by the plaintiffs.
The spouse’s negligence claim was dismissed outright. The court held CBC owed her no duty of care, as she was not identified in the reports and any harm she suffered arose from her relationship to the professor.
CBC defences upheld
The court found CBC had valid defences available, including responsible communication, justification, and fair comment.
On responsible communication, the judge pointed to the broadcaster’s extensive efforts to corroborate information, interview multiple students on the record, and seek comment from the professor, who declined to be interviewed but later issued a statement through counsel which CBC published.
The defence of justification was also available, the court held, citing admissions by the professor, investigative findings, corroborating documents, and a settlement agreement from his former employer.
Fair comment applied to quoted opinions from students, university officials, and advocates who criticized the use of non-disclosure agreements in harassment cases. The court found these remarks were recognisable as opinion, grounded in fact, and made on matters of public interest.
Balancing of harm and expression
Although the court accepted the professor’s career and reputation had been harmed, it noted the damage stemmed largely from Crandall University’s investigation and public disclosure, as well as other media coverage. “I am not able to conclude that CBC’s publications can be shown to be the only or even the primary cause of harm,” the court wrote.
It found CBC’s reporting was carried out “meticulously” and without malice, reinforcing the strong public interest in allowing the expression to stand.
The lawsuit was dismissed in full, and CBC was awarded $115,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis. The court noted CBC had previously offered to settle the matter without costs if the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the claim.
For more information, see Stackhouse, Jr., v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2025 ONSC 3183 (CanLII).
