Barry Neufeld, who previously sat on the Chilliwack, B.C. school board and is known for making controversial comments, was found to have defamed fellow trustee Carin Bondar over a statement Neufeld made calling Bondar “that strip-tease artist” during an interview on Zoom with a group called “Action4Canada.” Bondar has a YouTube channel, and one of the videos is a science‑themed parody music video entitled “Organisms Do Evolve.” In the four-minute-long video, Bondar briefly appears wearing only boots, seen from behind while swinging on a wrecking ball. Elsewhere in the video, she appears wearing what she described as “very skimpy” clothing.
The trial judge ruled the substance of the statement, or the “sting of the charge,” was that Bondar was, or had performed as, a strip-tease artist, and while she did appear briefly naked in the parody video, it was not accurate to characterize her that way. This characterization, he wrote, did not give the factual context for her science-themed performance in which she was clothed for the vast majority of the time and did not remove her clothing (Bondar v. Neufeld, 2024 BCSC 594).
Neufeld was ordered to pay $35,000 in general damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, but he argued there was a critical political context to his statement — an ongoing “ideological battle” in Chilliwack about sexual orientation and gender identity, known as SOGI, in schools. He said the statement was part of the “thrust and parry” of political discourse in this debate and would be interpreted by any reasonable audience as just another in a long line of “colourful and provocative” comments.
But Justice David Harris, who wrote the court’s unanimous opinion, ruled the trial judge made no reviewable errors in finding that Neufeld’s statement was defamatory and that the defences raised — justification, fair comment and qualified privilege — were not available to him.
“I have no hesitation in concluding the judge was correct that the impugned words were reasonably capable of bearing the alleged defamatory meaning,” he wrote. “There can be no real question — and Mr. Neufeld does not dispute — that the words were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning by implication.”
Justice Harris noted Neufeld's arguments that the judge’s conclusions that the words were defamatory was based on the literal meaning of the words rather than their inferential value — notwithstanding both sides agreeing the words were not defamatory in their literal sense.
“[But] the judge was well aware that [Bondar] did not allege the words to be defamatory in their literal meaning,” he wrote. “It is clear that the judge rests his finding that the words were defamatory on their inferential meaning by popular innuendo. The portion of the judgment to which [Neufeld] refers on appeal to show that the judge considered the words’ literal meaning comes from the judge’s discussion of the defence of justification, in which context the literal meaning of the words was relevant.”
As a result, Justice Harris dismissed the appeal. He was joined by Justices Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten and Nitya Iyer in his ruling (Neufeld v. Bondar, 2025 BCCA 51).
Paul Jaffe, counsel for Neufeld
“What the court is saying is that Barry Neufeld does not have the right to his own characterization of those artistic performances,” he said. “It creates a remarkably low bar for a plaintiff now to advance a libel claim — and so the message from the Court of Appeal is a very ominous, chilling message, and it is a ruling which is consistent with the concerns of many people watching the courts over the last few years and the perception that they've become increasingly political and ideologically-driven in the outcomes we see.”
But Susanna Allevato Quail of Allevato Quail & Associates, who represented Bondar, said the defamatory statements were not about any political nor policy issue — but rather a “gratuitous, denigrating insult.” And she rejected Jaffe’s contention that Neufeld’s statements were commentary on an artistic performance, saying they were an attack on Bondar’s character.
“This decision confirms that when women — among equity-seeking groups — enter electoral politics, they do not lose protection of the law against this type of abuse,” she said. “If we want a robust democracy in which people from all walks of life feel empowered to participate in electoral contests, we need to enforce the rules that keep the process within the bounds of the law.”
Howard Winkler of Winkler Law said the case represents a trend among courts in Canada to be more sensitive to the value of speech being attacked. He said in the recent past the pendulum has swung in favour of freedom of expression — he noted the Supreme Court’s 2009 introduction of the defence of responsible communication and legislation on strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in Ontario and British Columbia — but added “perhaps now the pendulum is swinging back somewhat where the courts are becoming more intolerant of personal attacks, collateral attacks and extreme speech.
“Perhaps this sensitivity to the value of speech is creeping into the minds of Judges by virtue of the weighing exercise in anti-SLAPP legislation, which requires judges to assesses the value of speech as against the public interest in protecting the expression,” said Winkler, who was not involved in the case. “In my view this is a good thing — in today’s environment, where anyone has the ability through X, Facebook and Instagram to inflict terrible irrevocable reputational harm, members of society need to know that their attacks on others may be met with significant consequences. Perhaps if this message gets out, society may revert to more civil discourse.”
Jaffe said he can’t dismiss the possibility of seeking leave to appeal the ruling, but it would require some thought.
“It’s a very expensive process, and I think there's a sort of well-known political and ideological predisposition of the court In Ottawa that is not accommodating for people who are expressing contrary views in regard to certain ideologically charged subjects,” he said.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Ian Burns at Ian.Burns@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5906.