[Section 15] How our libel law allowed the torture of children

Ontario's Grenville Christian College was a place where children were "emotionally, spiritually and sometimes physically [abused]" says a piece in today's Globe and Mail:

Joan Childs, who worked at the school for more than 30 years, posted a public apology on an Internet message board that former students have been using for more than a year to talk about what they experienced and suffered.

"What was done to people at GCC was very wrong," Ms. Childs wrote. "I was very wrong. And I am so sorry for all the hurt that was caused to each of you by me and by all of us in positions of leadership."

Former students have described a bizarre environment where they were hauled from their beds in the middle of the night to be harangued for hours by staff at so-called light sessions about being sinners.

Read the piece for more info.

What really caught my eye was a related piece, Brockville's local paper was advised not to publish abuse allegations which shockingly tells us that the local Brockville newspaper knew of these abuses, and had a story ready to print about it 20 years ago, but pulled back when witnesses suddenly retracted permission to use their names. At the exact same time, the newspaper received a letter from a major Toronto law firm threatening libel action if the article was printed.

So the story was never published.

Our libel laws place the burden of proof on the defendant, and assume that any defamation causes damage. The plaintiff merely has to claim that the published allegations are false, and it's up to the defendant to prove otherwise. Without the people willing to come forward -- and one wonders given the timing of things if there wasn't a connection between the witnesses withdrawing and the libel chill letter arriving -- the paper had little choice but to not publish.

And so the abuse went on for years more.

Many other Western jurisdictions have since reformed these ancient laws to properly place the onus upon the plaintiff, and to require proof of damage. All, except Canada, have reformed libel law to grant special protection for those commenting on matters of public interest. Some jurisdictions, like California and 23 other US states, have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) provisions allowing for vexatious or nuisance libel lawsuits to be easily thrown out and the plaintiffs penalized.

Quebec is currently considering updating their Code of Civil Procedure to penalize those launching anti-SLAPP suits (see here). New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are currently considering such laws as well. (I will be writing about all this soon enough).

Had such protection been around 20 years ago, would the abuse have continued? Would the witnesses have been less afraid to come forward?

Anti-SLAPP provisions need to be in place in every province in Canada.

Many defendants, including myself, are currently fighting libel claims filed in British Columbia by Wayne Crookes. You can read more about it here, and visit LibelChill.ca (still under development) for more.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/01/2007 03:35:00 PM