Relief for Administrators
Relief for Principals and School Administrators: Court Rules Online Communication Can Constitute Defamation
On February 17, 2009 the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important decision regarding when a parent can be liable for defamation for posting a statement online. In OCDSB v. Scharf et. al, the court considered a case where the parent of a child with down’s syndrome and a childrens rights activist were locked in a dispute with the district School Board ("the Board") over the child's education plan.The parent and activist were unhappy with several aspects of the child’s education plan and posted a so-called "News Release" ("the post") online criticizing the Board in an attempt to maintain the child's placement in a French Immersion program. The post also contained a mock court order which included a purported jail sentence for members of the Board.
In response, the Board sued the parent and the activist for defamation, claiming that the post contained the following four defamatory statements:
1. That the principal and superintendent had been held in contempt of court.
2. That the principal was under police investigation for “criminal conduct”.
3. That the school placement in the English program had become unsafe for the child.
4. That the Board had conceded on their request to allow the child to continue the French Immersion program after receiving notice of intended litigation.
At trial, the court held that these statements were defamatory and further found that the posting was a joint effort of the defendants. The court stated that the posting was a joint effort of the defendants for although the activist made the post, the parent contributed by providing information and consenting to its release. Finally the court rejected the available defenses to defamation claims and awarded damages to the Board and the principal. They further ordered that the defendants take down the post, refrain from making similar statements in the future and publish a statement in the local newspaper retracting the post and apologizing to the plaintiffs.
The parent appealed the decision on a number of grounds. However, the Court of Appeal only agreed to hear the issue of whether the parent participated in the publication of the defamatory statements. The court held that the trial judge correctly rejected the parent's evidence on this point as "incredible" and upheld the original decision. The parent further applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but this application was dismissed on December 4, 2008 effectively confirming the finality of the Court of Appeal decision.
This case is important to educators in several respects. First, it confirms that statements attacking their integrity which are posted online can constitute defamation. Secondly, it confirms that parents who participate in these statements by providing information to others and consenting to the release of postings prepared with this information cannot avoid responsibility because they did not make the postings themselves. In reaching these decisions, the courts have recognized the importance of professional reputation to educators and that harm that befall them when their reputations are attacked online.
