Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Appellant was a student at Memorial University in April of 1994, when she submitted her final assignment in social work to the Respondent, Professor Leslie Bella. Attached to her assignment as Appendix A was a case study taken from a textbook and listed in her bibliography, that was written in the first person, describing the author’s sexual abuse of children. Professor Bella concluded that the account was autobiographical and shared her concerns with Professor Dempster, who was Acting Director of the School of Social Work. Professor Bella placed a call to Child Protection Services “CPS”, telling them that the Appellant may have sexually abused children. Dr. Bella next reported her conclusions about the Appellant to Dr. Rowe, who was the Director of the School of Social Work. By letter dated May 25, 1994, he sent only a copy of Appendix A to CPS.

By letter dated May 11, 1994, the Appellant learned that her application to the School of Social Work had been refused. The Appellant approached Professor Dempster about how she might improve her chances for acceptance. Professor Dempster told her that the faculty did not think that she had what it took to become a social worker, without disclosing that she knew the Appellant was the subject of a referral to CPS. This conversation prompted the Appellant to abandon her studies at the university. In the ensuing two years, the allegation that the Appellant was a potential child sex abuser was communicated to the RCMP, to at least ten different social workers in different communities, and her name was placed on a data base of sexual offenders. In September of 1996, the Appellant first became aware of the allegations made against her. The Appellant immediately supplied the Department with the full text of her paper and the text book from which Appendix A had been copied verbatim. She received a letter of apology from CPS a couple of days later. CPS reported back to the Respondents that there was no basis for the concerns that they had raised about the Appellant. In January 2001, the Appellant learned that her application for a temporary job was turned down because of the continuing belief that the Appellant was “red-flagged.”

The Appellant commenced an action against the Respondents on March 17, 1998 proceeding by way of defamation and negligence. At trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favour of the Appellant on October 2, 2003, awarding her damages. The trial judge ordered that the sum of $317,000 be paid to the Appellant, and granted a partial stay with respect to payment of the remainder of the judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal delivered three sets of reasons. The appeal as to the jury’s finding of negligence was allowed, and there was a finding that there was no basis for remitting the matter to the Trial Division for a retrial.