A Saskatchewan man who defamed the former administrator of the Rural Municipality of Pleasantdale on Facebook is on the hook for over $150,000 after rejecting an offer to settle the lawsuit by writing an apology and paying $5,000.
He also failed to show up for trial multiple times.
In several statements he posted to the social media platform in 2020, Jack Harper publicly accused the RM of Pleasantdale’s then-administrator Debra Parry of malfeasance, stealing public funds and lying.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Grant Currie found all of the statements were untrue, defamatory and showed a “goal of achieving maximum harm” to Parry’s reputation by using “extreme language.”
Harper “has made no effort to justify his making and publishing these statements,” Currie wrote in a June 2026 decision.
“The evidence establishes that Ms. Parry has conducted herself honestly, responsibly and lawfully,” contrary to Harper’s allegations, Currie wrote.
He ordered Harper to pay Parry $125,000 in general damages, $25,000 in aggravated damages — plus interest from November 2020 until his judgment in June — and an undisclosed amount for Parry’s legal costs.
A King’s Bench courtroom in Saskatchewan. (Don Somers/CBC)
While people defame each other “all the time,” including on social media, the high costs associated with pursuing a lawsuit can create an “access to justice issue,” a legal expert told CBC News.
“I think most things that might technically be defamation don’t get litigated because people are talked out of litigating when they realize just what’s involved in terms of the expense,” said Hilary Young, a University of New Brunswick law professor who specializes in defamation law.
She said while it can be hard to track trends or statistics in civil lawsuits, social media’s ability to allow “anyone to publish widely” has meant an increase in cases involving online speech, particularly when someone’s reputation is at stake.
People have the right to broadly express their opinions, especially for matters of public interest, like politics, but in this particular case, Harper was alleging corruption, Young said.
“That’s not really an opinion, that’s a claim of a factual nature,” she said.
“Those rules that protect people who want to express their opinions wouldn’t apply to that sort of factual statement.”
Elevated blood pressure
According to court documents, after Harper defamed Parry online, she experienced elevated blood pressure, which caused nosebleeds she could not stop, and was instructed by a doctor to take stress leave from work.
Parry became “totally withdrawn” in her small town, feeling ostracized and like people were “watching and judging her,” the documents say.
Her lawyer, Kevin Miller said as a municipal administrator — someone who is bonded and in a position of trust and authority — her employment was affected by the defamation.
It spoke to her credibility and honesty in her role, “And that is her entire livelihood,” he said. “Small towns are small towns.”
I hope this case sets a precedent for all administrators.– Debra Parry
Parry “wanted to stand up for herself and for other administrators who face harassment online regularly,” Miller said.
In a statement to CBC, Parry said “many administrators are leaving the profession due to the harassment they take on a daily basis” and noted that administrators take direction from the councils they work for.
“I hope this case sets a precedent for all administrators,” she wrote.
‘Reprehensible’ behaviour
Miller said Harper “never supplied any sort of information to the court which would substantiate any of the claims he was posting on Facebook.”
He also did show up to the originally scheduled trial in fall 2025, citing medical reasons, disobeyed a court order to attend a conference call to find a new trial date, and failed “provide any collaboration of his claim to having been too sick to attend court,” Currie wrote in his decision.
“He was entitled to choose not to attend trial, but his disobeying the court order was reprehensible.”
When Harper did attend court proceedings, he cited non-existent case law, claimed to have never received a document that he himself had filed, and referred to paragraph 25 on a decision that only had 16 paragraphs, Currie wrote.
“In light of his other conduct, it is well within the realm of possibility that Mr. Harper had misled the court in claiming to be too sick to attend.”
The trial ultimately happened without Harper in March. Weeks later, he posted on Facebook about a defendant winning a civil lawsuit because “the defendant spent only $550” on legal fees, while “the plaintiff is out $150,000 in legal fees.”
The defendant “pays nothing on the judgement” and “walks away essentially unscathed,” he wrote.
“The plaintiff won the battle in court and lost the war in the bank. Litigation is expensive and a judgment is only as good as the money (or assets) behind it,” Harper wrote.
Currie wrote that the post “expressly highlights” Harper’s own conduct in escalating Parry’s legal expenses throughout the court process and showed “his disdain for the court process” and “lack of remorse.”
Currie noted Harper had not retracted the defamatory words or apologized.
“To the contrary, he has ‘doubled down’ in his conduct,” Currie wrote.
When reached for comment by CBC, Harper said the attention from the lawsuit will drive traffic to his Facebook page and he intends to publish documents against Parry.
“This case lasted six years and I grew tired of it and I could not attend trial because I’m on oxygen and even have trouble speaking,” Harper said in a statement.