A lawyer for the woman suing author and former UBC professor Steven Galloway said the fallout after the November 2015 allegations could not have been foreseen.
The Story
A lawyer for the woman suing author and former University of British Columbia professor Steven Galloway said Monday in B.C. Supreme Court that the “reckoning” that followed allegations published online was not foreseeable to his accuser.
Arden Beddoes, representing the woman identified as A.B., made the submission in his opening statement as Galloway’s defamation trial continued in Vancouver before Justice Neena Sharma.
Galloway is suing A.B. and other defendants, alleging they defamed him by publishing unproven allegations online and elsewhere after they surfaced in November 2015. Galloway has denied the allegations and was fired by UBC.
Beddoes told the court there is no dispute that allegations of rape and sexual assault are serious and that Galloway has described “profound personal or professional impacts upon him.” He argued, however, that it would be “not proper” to attribute everything that happened after November 2015 to A.B. alone.
Beddoes said the case involves “various events” and “distinct publications” between 2015 and 2018, and that the court will determine what can be legally attributed to A.B.
He said A.B. could not have foreseen UBC’s handling of the situation, including its investigation and public statements about Galloway, “let alone that it would become this extensive reckoning and controversy within the Canadian literary community.”
The court also heard earlier in the trial that A.B. is no longer asserting in her defence that Galloway assaulted her, but that she reported he had done so.
A.B. is not testifying in the case, citing mental health struggles, and Galloway’s lawyers closed their case Monday after weeks of testimony on the effects on Galloway’s career and personal life after he was accused and later fired by UBC.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2018 seeking general and special damages, with Galloway alleging statements by A.B. and others on Twitter and elsewhere were defamatory. Several people named as defendants earlier have settled with Galloway and offered public apologies.
Earlier Monday, the trial heard from a publishing industry expert who testified about a report forecasting Galloway’s potential earnings had his career not been derailed by the allegations.
Kevin Hanson testified that enthusiasm for Galloway’s novel The Cellist of Sarajevo was “remarkable and rare,” describing the author as belonging to a “unique class.” Hanson said he believed the 2015 allegations affected performance of Galloway’s subsequent book, The Confabulist, and that Penguin Random House Canada shelved the paperback run of The Confabulist after the allegations surfaced.
Under cross-examination, Beddoes questioned Hanson about the report’s assumptions and comparisons used to project earnings. Hanson said, “All I’m doing is looking at the numbers,” and that he believed there was an impact on the performance of The Confabulist.
The court heard that Beddoes characterized Galloway as “one for four” on successful books and that The Cellist of Sarajevo had earned more than $1 million in royalties, while the first two books and The Confabulist earned tens of thousands.
Hanson testified that his report estimated that Galloway’s potential earnings for six more books would range between more than $700,000 and $2 million each, and said such trajectories are common for writers who typically do not see success until their third book.
Justice Sharma excused Hanson briefly while he testified by video, and she told Beddoes some questions were improperly worded. Sharma said the questions implied that a book earning tens of thousands of dollars in royalties was a “failure,” a characterization Hanson rejected.
Hanson was excused after Beddoes finished his cross-examination, and Galloway’s lawyer, Daniel Burnett, said the case for Galloway was closed. The trial is set to continue in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on Tuesday.
← More stories