Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 11-51657

DATE: 2014/05/27

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Joanne St. Lewis, Plaintiff

AND

Denis Rancourt, Defendant

BEFORE: Justice M. Z. Charbonneau

COUNSEL: Richard G. Dearden and Anastasia Semenova for the Plaintiff

Denis Rancourt choosing not to participate at trial

HEARD: In writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] I must decide whether, as a matter of law, the words used in the 8 stings highlighted in exhibits 3 and 4 are reasonably capable of being defamatory.

[2] I must decide whether the challenged words are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings set forth by the plaintiff in her statement of claim. In deciding this threshold issue, I must be guided by the following well established legal principles:

• At this stage I am only deciding prima facie defamation

• In WIC Radio LTD v. Simpson , 2008 SCC 40 at paras 67-68, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the following definition of a defamatory statement from the BC Court of Appeal decision in Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers “a defamatory statement is one which has the tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or dis-esteem.” As a result the test to be applied is a relatively low one.

• The trial judge is to apply a standard of common sense construction, an objective test, and the words will be construed as they are generally understood in their natural and ordinary sense.

• “It is not necessary to prove that the words would be understood in a defamatory sense by everyone who hears or reach them, as long as the question of whether a reasonable person to whom they were published would understand them in a defamatory sense is answered in the affirmative”: Lawson v. Baines 2012 BCCA 117 at paragraph 27.

• The meaning of the words may be determined from the ordinary meaning of the words or from the surrounding circumstances, as they would be understood by the ordinary, reasonable and fair-minded reader: Boteuk v. Toronto Free Press 1995 60 (SCC), [1995] 3 SCR 3 at para 62.

• In this case the plaintiff has alleged several meanings for each sting. I must decide whether the words are capable of bearing each of the defamatory meanings. However, I am not to select a meaning that is the harshest or most extreme.

[3] The plaintiff has set out all the meanings she alleges flow from each sting in a draft book of questions. Those are found at tab A of the book of questions which has been filed on this Voir Dire.

[4] Applying the above legal principles and keeping in mind that I must not select the meaning which is the harshest and most extreme I conclude that the words for each of the specified sting are capable of bearing all of the following natural and ordinary meanings and are reasonably capable of defaming the plaintiff.

[5] In relation to Sting number 1: “did professor St. Lewis act as Allan Rock’s House Negro”, is capable of the following meanings:

a. Professor St. Lewis lacks integrity

b. Professor St. Lewis was biased in the conduct and offering over an evaluation of the SAC report

c. Professor St. Lewis acted in a servile manner toward president Allan Rock

[6] In relation to Sting number 2: “February is Black history month in Canada and the US. U of O Watch believes that it is the right time not only to honour black Americans who fought for social justice against masters but also to out Black Americans who were and continue to be house negroes to masters”, is capable of the following meanings:

a. Professor St. Lewis needs to be outed for acting in a servile manner toward president Allan Rock

b. Professor St. Lewis needs to be outed for acting in a servile manner toward the University of Ottawa

c. Professor St. Lewis needs to be outed for betraying black people or other minorities for personal gain our advantage

d. Professor St. Lewis needs to be outed for acting in an inauthentic manner toward the president Allan Rock

[7] In relation to sting number 3: “the same spirit prevailed when civil rights icon Ralph Nader suggested that US Pres. Obama needed to decide if he was going to be an uncle Tom”, is capable of the following meanings:

a. Professor St. Lewis has put the interests of the University of Ottawa ahead of the interests of black persons or other minorities in order to serve the interests of president Allan Rock

b. Professor St. Lewis has put the interests of the University of Ottawa ahead of the interests of black persons are other minorities in order to serve the interests of the University of Ottawa

c. Professor St. Lewis has acted in an abjectly servile and deferential manner to president Allan Rock

d. Professor St. Lewis has acted in an abjectly servile and deferential manner to the University of Ottawa.

[8] In relation to Sting number 4: “the Student Appeal Center(SAC) of the student union at the University of Ottawa today released documents obtained by an access to information (ATI) request that suggests that law professor Joanne St. Lewis acted like president Allan Rock’s house negro when she enthusiastically toiled to discredit a 2008 SAC report about systemic racial discrimination at the University”, is capable of the following meanings:

a. Professor St. Lewis acted in a servile manner toward University of Ottawa president Allan Rock (a white male)

b. Professor St. Lewis acted in a servile manner toward the University of Ottawa

c. Professor St. Lewis acted in an inauthentic manner toward University of Ottawa president Allan Rock

d. Professor St. Lewis acted in an in authentic manner toward the University of Ottawa

e. Professor St. Lewis conducted and authored an evaluation of the student appeal center report that was disingenuous or deceitful in order to promote the interests of University of Ottawa president Allan Rock University of Ottawa or herself

f. Professor St. Lewis sold herself out to the president of the University of Ottawa

g. Professor St. Lewis acted without integrity in conducting and authoring her evaluation of the student appeal center report

[9] In relation to sting number 5: “the newly released ATI records are disturbing far beyond the nontenured professor St. Lewis uncommon zeal to serve the University administration”, is capable of the following meanings:

a) professor St. Lewis conducted and authored her evaluation of the student appeal center report with a view TO obtaining tenure, a promotion or other personal benefit or gain

b) professor St. Lewis conducted and authored an evaluation of the student appeal center report that was disingenuous or deceitful in order to promote her self-interest or the interests of University of Ottawa president Allan Rock and/or the University of Ottawa

c) professor St. Lewis acted without integrity in conducting and authoring her evaluation of the student appeal center report

[10] In relation to Sting number 6: “the ATI records expose a high-level cover-up orchestrated by Allan Rock himself to hide the fact that the St. Lewis efforts were anything but independent, as she characterizes her report on the first page”, is capable of the following meanings:

a. Professor St. Lewis participated in a high-level cover-up of wrongdoing

b. Professor St. Lewis acted without integrity in conducting and authoring her evaluation of the SAC report

c. Professor St. Lewis was dishonest in her evaluation of the SAC report

d. Professor St. Lewis conducted and authored an evaluation of the SAC report that was disingenuous or deceitful in order to promote the interests of Allan Rock, University of Ottawa and/or herself.

[11] In relation to Sting number 7: “Ironically, the original SAC report was about racial discrimination regarding academic fraud appeals; such as when an academic misrepresents his/her work as “independent” when it is verifiably and factually not “independent” (by any stretch), is capable of the following meanings:

a) Professor St. Lewis acted without integrity and conducting and authoring her evaluation of the SAC report

b) Professor St. Lewis was dishonest in conducting and authoring an evaluation of the SAC report

c) Professor St. Lewis conducted and authored an evaluation of the SAC report that was disingenuous or deceitful in order to promote the interests of Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa and/or herself.

[12] In relation to Sting number 8: “I did not say that Prof St. Lewis acted like a house negro because she is black. I said it because it was reasonable to conclude in the matter that she acted like a house negro and because it is my reasoned opinion that she acted like a house negro. She did so while attempting to discredit a 2008 student union report that alerted the University to its now more than evident problem of systemic racism: see all posts of U of O racism HERE”, was capable of the following meanings:

a. Professor St. Lewis acted in a servile manner toward president Allan Rock when conducting and authoring her evaluation of the SAC report

b. Professor St. Lewis acted in a servile manner toward the University of Ottawa when conducting and authoring her evaluation of the SAC report

c. Professor St. Lewis acted in an inauthentic manner toward University of Ottawa president Allan Rock when conducting and authoring her evaluation of the SAC report

d. Professor St. Lewis acted in an inauthentic manner toward the University of Ottawa when conducting and authoring her evaluation of the SAC report

e. Professor St. Lewis lacks integrity

[13] When read in the context that Professor St. Lewis had agreed to undertake a review of the SAC report which alleged systemic racism in the academic fraud process and that she was providing her evaluation of that report as a lawyer, law professor and expert in the field of Human Rights and Research, the words in their natural and ordinary meaning would more than likely be considered defamatory by the ordinary fair-minded individual. They more than probably would be viewed as an attack on Professor’s St. Lewis honesty, independence and professionalism. As such, the words are capable of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of an ordinary, objective, reasonable member of society who does not have overly fragile sensibilities.

[14] On the other hand, I am not satisfied that the same reasonable person would likely give the impugned words the other meanings alleged by the plaintiff. Most of these other alleged meanings talk of being a traitor to black people or denigrating black people or supporting racism. I am of the view that these are not meanings which naturally flow from the words themselves or any reasonable inference from the words themselves in the overall context in which the words were written and published. Therefore the remaining meanings alleged by the plaintiff will not be submitted to the jury.

Justice M. Z. Charbonneau

Date: May 27, 2014

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Joanne St. Lewis, Plaintiff,

AND

Denis Rancourt, Defendant (Not present)

BEFORE: M. Z. Charbonneau

COUNSEL: Richard G. Dearden and Anastasia Semenova Counsel for the Plaintiff

ENDORSEMENT

M. Z. Charbonneau

Released: May 27, 2014