The defamation case against a University of Regina professor has reached Saskatchewan’s highest court, as she attempts to have a recent Court of King’s Bench decision reversed.
At the centre of the Court of Appeal hearing was a Facebook comment, which is now nearly a decade old, where Michelle Stewart called a book penned by Saskatchewan author Candis McLean, “racist garbage.”
It stems from McLean’s 2016 self-published book titled, When Police Become Prey: The Cold, Hard Facts of Neil Stonechild’s Freezing Death, when she challenged the findings of the inquiry into Stonechild’s death. The inquiry concluded the 17-year-old from Saulteaux First Nation was taken into custody by two Saskatoon police officers on the night he froze to death in November 1990.
The book claims to clear the names of the two officers who were fired from the Saskatoon Police Service as part of the broader “Starlight Tours” scandal, where police were accused of dropping off Indigenous people on the outskirts of the city in freezing temperatures.
When McLean planned book signings in Saskatchewan, they were met with backlash from the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism (SCAR).
Stewart was among those opposed, urging venues to cancel the signings.
In the comment section of a post on the SCAR page, she made the remark that launched the lawsuit.
In June 2025, Justice Neil Robertson issued his written decision, which ruled Stewart defamed McLean.
“Having read the book, I do not find that it is racist,” he wrote.
He added that while the comment targeted the book, the term “racist” could reasonably be associated with its author.
“If a reasonable person believed that the book was racist, they might then believe that the author was as well,” Robertson said.
He noted that “racist” is a “highly charged word” and should not be “thrown around carelessly.”
Arguments were made Monday to a panel of three Court of Appeal Justices, which includes Chief Justice Robert Leurer, Justice Neal Caldwell and Justice Meghan McCreary.
Appellants make their case
Stewart’s lawyers argued the lower court judge erred in his ruling by applying subjective value to the statement.
“Fair doesn’t mean reasonable,” said Jason Clayards, Stewart’s counsel. “Fair doesn’t mean kind. Fair means honestly held.”
Clayards went on to say Stewart was not calling McLean herself a “racist,” only the opinions within her book were.
“It was not a comment about the plaintiff,” he argued. “It was a comment on the book; it was attacking the book.”
Counsel went on to say the professor could not have defamed the author because the post Stewart commented on already called McLean a “racist.”
“It was a comment on a post which already called Ms. McLean a ‘colonial racist,’” said Clayards. “Any damage that was done to Ms. McLean’s reputation was already done before Stewart made her comment.”
McLean’s lawyers respond
In response to Clayards’ arguments, McLean’s counsel believed Stewart did not have enough knowledge of the book to be able to comment on its contents.
According to the lower court’s ruling, Stewart had read just parts of the book, including the front and back covers, the introduction and other available excerpts.
“What we contest is when (you) make an attribution which will put a label of ‘racist’ onto someone else, a problem arises,” said Tavengwa Runyowa. “It’s coming from somewhere; life experience, perspective. Could two judges read the same book and come to different conclusions? They absolutely can.”
“But we can’t circumvent, as long as the law says the truth, a defense of justification applies,” he added.
Runyowa went on to say Stewart should not have judged the book by its cover in order to see McLean’s extensive research, interviews as well as comments about the RCMP’s and Saskatoon Police’s troubled relationship with the Indigenous community.
“The fact Stewart did not read the book, and could not point to her foundation in the facts, is telling,” he said.
The respondents also believe Stewart was trying to drum up support for her protests and have McLean’s book signings cancelled.
“The whole purpose of this enterprise was to get as many people as possible calling on venues to cancel Ms. McLean’s events,” Runyowa argued. “The goal was to broadcast this to the community at large; this was not a private Facebook page … they wanted this broadcast to the largest possible audience they could find.”
Counter claim
In the original decision, Stewart was found liable for inducing a breach of contract by contacting venues and urging them to cancel McLean’s events. McLean sought $165,642 in damages.
The court awarded her $6,450, including $1,000 in general damages for defamation, $3,000 for inducing breach of contract, and $2,450 in actual damages related to the cancellations.
Runyowa argued the award should have been higher.
“He conducted the necessary analysis and made his findings associated to the inquiring into the damages,” he described. “But then gave damages which completely disregarded that.”
In response, Clayards — wanted first for the panel to reverse the previous decision — but then to disregard the damages increase, saying it was not allowed to.
He went on to argue the respondents did not have the evidence to prove Stewart made calls to more than one venue.
“[She] is responsible only for her own actions,” said Clayards. “Not for anybody else’s. The Quality Inn cancelled the booking; Ms. McLean was forced to have the signings on the sidewalk. She still had the opportunity to promote the book.”
The Court of Appeal panel reserved their decision Monday.
It is expected to have a written decision in due time.
With files from Stacey Hein
