Former B.C. Trustee Ordered to Pay Monthly After Defamation Ruling

Court Orders Trustee to Make Monthly Payments

On December 2 2025 a former Chilliwack School Board trustee appeared in court and was ordered to begin paying $75 each month toward the legal costs owed after losing a defamation lawsuit. 

The ruling follows a court decision against him for calling another trustee Carin Bondar a “striptease artist” during a 2022 election-period interview. 

Background: What Led to the Judgment

The defamation case began after Neufeld while campaigning for a school board seat publicly referred to Bondar with that demeaning label. The courts concluded the remark was defamatory because it damaged her reputation and was not backed by any factual basis. 

In April 2024 the court awarded Bondar $45,000 in general and punitive damages. An appeal by Neufeld was dismissed in 2025. 

Because Neufeld failed to pay the amount as ordered, the court recently determined a payment schedule to enforce the debt recovery. 

The Cost and What It Means for Neufeld

According to court documents Neufeld now owes over fifty-three thousand dollars in legal costs, damages and court expenses. The monthly payment plan of seventy-five dollars is meant to allow repayment over time given his limited financial means. 

If Neufeld fails to meet the payment obligations the court ruled he could face enforcement actions including further arrest. 

What Others Say: Accountability and Respect in Public Discourse

Bondar said the decision shows that public figures cannot use slurs or demeaning characterizations to discredit opponents without consequences. She noted that being a scientist, educator and trustee should not invite sexist attacks or defamatory claims. 

Legal experts said the ruling reaffirms that making false statements especially those aiming to shame or degrade a person’s character is not protected under political debate when they harm reputation and cross into defamation. 

Broader Implications: Defamation Rulings and Public Office

This case underscores the legal and moral limits of public speech for elected or former officials. The court’s decision highlights that defamation remains actionable even within political or campaign contexts, especially when personal attacks have no factual basis.

It may also serve as a cautionary example for other public-office candidates or commentators about the seriousness of defamatory remarks and the potential financial and legal consequences.

Stay updated instantly — follow us on Instagram | Facebook | X