Landmark Victory for Author in Defamation Suit
In a significant legal decision, author Candis McLean has won a defamation lawsuit against University of Regina professor Michelle Stewart, who publicly labeled McLean's book 'racist garbage.' The ruling, issued on June 13 by Justice Neil Robertson at the Court of King's Bench in Saskatchewan, marks the culmination of an eight-year legal battle that began in 2017. McLean's book, 'When Police Become Prey: The Cold, Hard Facts of Neil Stonechild's Freezing Death,' published in 2016, challenges the findings of the inquiry into the 1990 death of Neil Stonechild, an Indigenous teenager who froze to death outside Saskatoon.
The court's decision found Stewart liable for defamation due to her derogatory comments about the book. Additionally, the judge determined that Stewart's efforts to have venues cancel McLean's book signings in 2016 amounted to inducing a breach of contract. McLean, speaking from her home in Calgary, expressed relief at the verdict, stating, 'It's a slightly delayed reaction because it's been eight years in the coming. I feel this sends a message to activists who feel they can get away with anything.'
Details of the Case and Financial Outcome
McLean initially sought damages amounting to $165,642 for the harm caused by Stewart's statements and actions. However, Justice Robertson awarded her $6,450.02, a fraction of the requested amount. This award reflects the court's recognition of the damage to McLean's reputation while balancing the scope of the defamatory impact. The case has drawn attention to the boundaries of free speech and criticism within academic and public spheres, particularly when directed at controversial works.
The book at the center of the dispute revisits the tragic death of Neil Stonechild, who died at age 17 after being taken into police custody on a cold November night in 1990. The subsequent inquiry led to the dismissal of two Saskatoon police officers, a conclusion McLean disputes in her writing, asserting their innocence. This perspective has fueled debate and controversy, making the defamation case a focal point for discussions on justice and historical accountability.
Broader Implications for Authors and Public Discourse
The outcome of this lawsuit carries implications beyond the individuals involved, potentially setting a precedent for how authors can protect their work from defamatory criticism. Legal experts note that the ruling underscores the importance of responsible commentary, especially from figures in influential positions like university professors. It also highlights the challenges authors face when addressing sensitive historical events, particularly those involving systemic issues and Indigenous communities.
Public sentiment, as reflected in various posts on X, shows a mix of support for McLean's victory and concern over the broader stifling of critical dialogue. While some view the decision as a win for authors' rights to defend their work, others question whether it might discourage open critique of controversial content. This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting reputations and fostering robust public debate on contentious issues.