N.S. man awarded $85,000 in damages after ex claims he’s a sexual predator on social media

A Nova Scotia judge has ordered an Inuk woman to pay a Halifax university professor she once dated $85,000 in damages for labelling him a sexual predator on social media after they broke up.

The professor is identified by the initials J.F. in the judge’s written decision in order to protect the identity of his young daughter. His online harasser, a former student at the university where he teaches, is dubbed B.A.

“The unfounded allegations that Mr. F is a sexual predator are bad enough,” Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Timothy Gabriel said.

“To further add that he is a serial victimizer of Indigenous women, and carrying on this activity on his employer’s premises magnifies the already significant impact of these posts upon his reputation. For the respondent to allege that he is depraved enough to sexually assault his very young daughter, and also parade her around to his supervisors and co-workers, having her urinate in front of them for their titillation and/or amusement, is truly horrific. Finally, that Ms. A would actually name the applicant’s young daughter in these posts, and post her picture, displays absolutely no regard for decency whatsoever.”

Attempting to destroy an adult’s life “is a terrible thing,” Gabriel said.

“But to have so little regard for a small child (who was approximately four years old when this campaign started and undoubtedly now attends school) is incomprehensible,” said the judge. “In a very real way, Ms. A has treated this little girl as mere collateral damage in her war with Mr. F.”

The professor took his ex to court looking for the judge to declare that her posts about him “constitute cyber bullying,” according to the decision dated Sept. 18.

He also wanted Gabriel to order her to take down the posts and stop her from contacting him.

The judge’s decision doesn’t name the university where he teaches, and she was a student.

“The parties had a relatively short-lived relationship which began and ended in 2019,” Gabriel said. “It appears to have begun in May and was essentially over by November of that year.”

The woman describes herself as “a visual artist, musician” and Inuktitut language teacher, according to the decision.

The professor alleged in a May affidavit that her online harassment “has caused him significant distress, and that he fears, due to the nature of the accusations levelled against him, that he will be targeted with violence,” said the decision.

“He says he has lost hair and weight, and experiences heart palpitations due to the stress and fear caused by the respondent’s harassment.”

The woman has over 3,000 followers on Instagram, as well as less on other social media platforms.

She admitted to labelling him a predator in her posts.

“He is a predator. He just does not agree with that view. I tried to seek out help from authorities but I was not believed. So, for me, it is true he is a predator because he abused his power as a professor to take advantage of me, a single Indigenous woman and mother,” she told the court in a written affidavit.

“He is using this court case to disparage me, intimidate me and continue his abusive and exploitative behaviour.”

She alleged that the professor is sexually abusing his daughter at work and that he “would sexually groom his daughter in front of her,” said the decision.

She posted a letter written by her lawyer repeating claims that he stalked her and forced her to have an abortion, it said.

She called him a “white racist” and posted a photo of the professor with his daughter stating he is sexually abusing her, said the decision.

She also made social media posts alleging the professor is violent, and that while he was earning his post-doctoral degree, his supervisor was “mysteriously pushed off a mountain and he had to get another supervisor.”

Her only justification for making the comments was “that she believes them to be true,” said the judge.

Gabriel had “no difficulty concluding that the electronic communications in question, made by the respondent, were not only likely to cause harm to the applicant’s health or well-being, but that they were maliciously intended to do so. It is obvious. Most of the communications in questions are grossly offensive and indecent.”

Her online campaign against the professor “was as relentless as it was extensive,” said the judge. “She was motivated by malice. The timing of the postings was tied to the relationship break-up, its recommencement and its second break-up.”

The judge awarded the professor $70,000 in general damages, as well as another $15,000 in punitive damages.

“Many, many people all over the world are hurt every day when relationships end,” Gabriel said.

“Thankfully, only an infinitesimally small number of them respond by attempting to engage in actions such as those employed by Ms. A.”

He also ordered that the posts in question “be taken down and disabled immediately.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.