In the B.C. Supreme Court, Cara Woodruff testified about a 2015 email she called "inflated and outrageous ." The case involves author Steven Galloway, who claims unproven allegations ruined his career.
The "outrageous rhetoric" of Chelsea Rooney's 2015 email
During the proceedings, Cara Woodruff , a graduate of the University of British Columbia (UBC) creative writing program, testified that she was shocked by the language used in a mass email sent by Chelsea Rooney in November 2015. As the report states, Rooney had been tasked with gathering complaints against the former professor and chair of the creative writing program, Steven Galloway. Woodruff testified that the email urged recipients to contact a reporter from The Canadian Press and contained rhetoric she found deeply unsettling.
Chelsea Rooney has since issued a public apology to Galloway, acknowledging that her conduct was "serious and harmful." According to the report, Rooney claimed she was acting at the request of UBC, faculty members, and the complainant, identified as A.B ., to collect complaints. However, Rooney also noted that she had no evidence that the serious allegations against Galloway were actually true.
A.B.'s 2019 admission regarding the CBC legal team
A significant turning point in the testimony involved the complainant, A.B., who remains under a publication ban. The court heard that in 2019, A.B. admitted during cross-examination that she had falsely claimed the CBC's legal team had vetted her story. This claim was made, according to the source, because A.B. felt a desperate need to compel UBC to launch a formal investigation.
While A.B. stated she did not regret the claim—arguing it was a necessary step for her own safety and to ensure women's cases are heard—the admission highlights the volatility of the information that fueled the initial outcry against Galloway. this admission adds a layer of complexity to the defamation claims, as it suggests that some of the momentum behind the allegations was built on unverified assertions.
The 2013 distinction between harassment and assault
The testimony of Stephen Bohnen, a former UBC community relations officer, provided further clarity on the nature of the original complaints. Bohnen, who documented the initial complaint in 2013, clarified that A.B. had reported sexual harassment rather than sexual assault. This distinction is crucial to the legal arguments being presented in the B.C. Supreme Court.
Bohnen also addressed conflicting accounts regarding campus security,noting that he had no reason to view Galloway as anything other than a professor. The discrepancy between the initial reports of harassment and the later, more severe allegations of assault underscores the "downstream" effect of how these claims evolved over several years .
Glynnis Kirchmeier’s argument over UBC's handling of reports
As the trial continues, a central question remains: to what extent did the University of British Columbia's handling of these complaints contribute to the subsequent defamation? Defendant Glynnis Kirchmeier has argued that her own belief in the allegations was influenced by how UBC managed the reports . She suggested that a failure in the university's process made it reasonable to distrust the findings of a former judge who had deemed the allegations unsubstantiated.
However, several pieces of the puzzle remain missing. it is still unclear how much weight the university's internal investigations carried in the public eye, and because A.B. is not asserting the truth of her claims in her defense, the trial is essentially a battle over the damage caused by the spread of unverified information rather than a determination of Galloway's original conduct.
Comments 0