In Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board, the Ontario Court of Appeal tackled the thorny issue of when public officials can restrict speech and whether they can be held liable for defamatory statements made in the aftermath.
The case began when Carolyn Burjoski, a retired teacher, presented concerns at a school board meeting about books in school libraries discussing gender identity. The board chair, citing potential violations of the Human Rights Code, cut her presentation short. The controversy escalated when the chair made public statements to the media, characterizing Burjoski’s comments as “transphobic” and “questioning the right to exist of trans people.” The school board removed the video of the meeting, preventing public scrutiny of her actual statements.
Burjoski sued for defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering. The defendants moved to dismiss the case under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law (Courts of Justice Act, s. 137.1), arguing the lawsuit suppressed speech on a matter of public interest. The motion judge ruled that the defamation claim had substantial merit, finding that the board chair’s statements misrepresented what Burjoski had actually said. While the judge erred in assessing the board’s authority to stop the presentation, the appellate court upheld the decision to allow the defamation claim to proceed.
This case underscores the risks public officials face when making strong public statements about controversial topics. It also illustrates the tension between counter-speech, reputational harm, and the limits of anti-SLAPP protections in defamation law.