A defamation case filed by Pat Morton, wife of former Quesnel Mayor Ron Paull, against City Councillor Laurey-Anne Roodenburg has been dismissed.
Justice Tindale handed down his decision this week.
The suit revolves around statements made by Roodenburg at Council meetings in March 19 and April 2, 2024 in response to Morton handing out the book Grave Error-How the Media Misled Us (And the Truth about Residential Schools) to a handful of people.
Critics of the book say it implies that cultural genocide did not occur at residential schools, and questions the existence of residential schools.
Morton accused Roodenburg of making disparaging remarks and inaccurate statements against her at the meetings, saying they resulted in significant harm to her reputation.
Roodenburg, First Nations Liaison for Council, said “I respect the fact that people have the right to their own opinions, but what I don’t see here is the respect that your wife has shown in your role as mayor of this community. We know that what has happened reflects not only on you, but on council and our community as a whole. The anger and reopening of old memories is doing serious harm to our first nations communities.”
She went on to say “To distribute a book that claims cultural genocide did not occur is morally reprehensible and clearly comes from a place that is meant to do harm to members of our First Nations communities.”
Morton also said Roodenburg made no effort to contact her before making public statements about her.
Morton adds that Roodenburg took the Oath of Office and that she would refrain from abusive conduct or verbal attacks.
For her part, Roodenburg argued that the distribution of the book, and not her comments, are what prompted widespread public discussion and outcry.
She also cited the Protection of Public Participation Act in saying the statements amounted to qualified privilege in her role as a municipal Councillor.
Roodenburg said a City Councillor taking a strong stance on a matter that effects their constituents is not evidence of malice.
Morton, on the other hand, said that it is designed to prevent the silence of legitimate public debate, but was not designed to give a blank cheque to public officials to make unverified, inaccurate and damaging statements about a private citizen.
Roodenburg said the comments related to a matter of public interest and were made in her capacity as a municipal Councillor and the City’s Indigenous Liaison, adding that it was evident from letters they received from local First Nations and the public.
Morton argued that while the subject matter of the book may be a matter of public interest, the statements about her were not necessary to the discussion.
Roodenburg also used the defense of “fair comment” saying the statements made were opinions that any person could express and are based on facts.
In the end, Justice Tindale agreed with Roodenburg in his decision.
He said that he was satisfied that the issue was a matter of public interest, and that Roodenburg’s statements at the April meeting amounted to little more than critical or perhaps rude comments, that were not defamatory in nature.
Justice Tindale also said that based on the evidence, he felt Roodenburg had an honestly held belief as to the factual accuracy of the expressions she made at the March meeting as well.
On the topic of qualified privilege, he said “elected officials are, in a way, conduits for the voices of their constituents: they convey their grievances to municipal government and they also inform them about the state of that government.”
Justice Tindale went on to say that “municipal democracy is based on confrontation between views and an open, and sometimes vigorous and passionate debate.”
He said that Roodenburg was acting in the course of her duties when she made the statements, and that there was no proof of bad faith, deliberate lies or malice in the statements, and therefore they were protected by qualified privilege.
The Justice closed by saying that he was satisfied that the balancing of the competing interests of freedom of expression and freedom of debate versus the protection of a person’s reputation weighs heavily in favour of dismissing the claim.”
Morton has been ordered to pay costs in this case as well pending an appeal, which Morton says she will do.
