Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Saïd Boukendour, a professor at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, sued two university administrators for defamation arising from their intervention during a mid-session examination on March 11, 2020.
• Central to the dispute was whether the defendants acted as reasonable persons when they approached Boukendour to arrange an accommodation for a student who complained of excessive noise in the examination room.
• Boukendour claimed the intervention was humiliating, unprofessional, and constituted an attack on his academic freedom and professional reputation.
• He sought $15,000 for reputational harm and $5,000 for various other troubles and inconveniences.
• Evidentiary weight of a student letter and its author's testimony was significantly diminished by the court due to concerns about credibility and apparent bias in favour of the plaintiff.
• No fault was established against the defendants, and the court found no defamatory conduct, no cognizable reputational harm, and no compensable prejudice.

Facts of the case

Saïd Boukendour is a professor in the Department of Administrative Sciences (DSA) at the Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO). On March 11, 2020, while supervising a mid-session examination, a student left the examination room to complain to the DSA about excessive noise that was preventing him from concentrating. The student first approached Maude Bélanger-Côté, an administrative assistant at the DSA, who directed him to Jan Saint-Macary, then acting director of the DSA. After a brief discussion with the student, Saint-Macary asked Bélanger-Côté to accompany him to the examination room. Upon arriving, they found the door open and observed what they described as a cacophonous atmosphere — students talking and exchanging documents — consistent with the student's complaint. Saint-Macary signalled Boukendour from the doorway, and the two had a discussion in the hallway. It was agreed that the complaining student would continue his examination in a room near the library. More than seven months later, in October 2020, Boukendour filed a grievance through his union, denouncing the intervention as humiliating and defamatory. On January 19, 2024, the grievance arbitrator rejected Boukendour's claims. In parallel, Boukendour commenced civil proceedings, claiming the defendants' remarks could have been overheard by his students and led them to conclude that the UQO administration considered him incapable of properly supervising an examination, thereby damaging his professional reputation. He sought $15,000 for reputational harm and $5,000 for various other troubles and inconveniences.

Legal framework

Under Quebec civil law, defamation does not constitute a standalone cause of action. It is grounded in article 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec, which requires the plaintiff to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a fault, a prejudice, and a causal link between the two. The court applied two distinct standards: the "reasonable person" standard to assess whether the defendants' conduct amounted to a fault, and the "ordinary citizen" standard to evaluate whether the remarks, viewed objectively and in their entirety, were of a nature to diminish the esteem or consideration in which Boukendour was held. The court also relied on article 1607 C.c.Q. and the Supreme Court's guidance in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 CSC 27, which holds that compensable prejudice must exceed the threshold of ordinary annoyances and inconveniences inherent to life in society.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that the defendants' conduct was entirely consistent with the standard of a reasonable, diligent person attentive to the rights of others. Saint-Macary and Bélanger-Côté acted in response to a student's legitimate complaint about examination conditions, under circumstances of relative urgency given that the student was losing examination time. Crucially, Saint-Macary remained at the doorway and signalled Boukendour rather than entering the room, issuing no reprimand and imposing no directive. The discussion in the hallway lasted approximately five to seven minutes, was described as brief and courteous, and concluded with Boukendour's own agreement to the proposed accommodation. The court further noted that as acting director of the DSA, Saint-Macary held a collegial role without hierarchical authority over Boukendour, and that Boukendour himself admitted the exchange was civil and free of insults. The court accorded little probative value to a letter signed by student Pauline Lobe, which alleged disrespectful behaviour and a disruptive intervention, finding that the evidence at trial revealed a markedly different reality. The court identified several credibility concerns: the witness's unsubstantiated claim to speak on behalf of students, the absence of proof that the letter was transmitted to UQO authorities, the unusual step of copying the letter to Boukendour's union before any formal dispute had crystallised, and the witness's repeated attempts to seek Boukendour's approval during cross-examination. Consistent with the grievance arbitrator's findings, the court concluded that the letter and its author appeared to have been instrumentalised in support of Boukendour's case. On the question of prejudice, the court found that Boukendour's testimony was superficial and disclosed no concrete facts or significant manifestations of harm beyond a minor and transient annoyance. No witness testified that Boukendour's reputation or professional standing had been negatively affected, and no evidence established that his career progression, teaching assignments, or working conditions had been compromised. The court also observed that any perception of humiliation was largely self-generated: upon returning to the classroom after the exchange, Boukendour chose to address his students about his indignation at the complaining student, thereby drawing attention to an incident that had otherwise been resolved.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed Boukendour's claim in its entirety, with costs. The defendants — Maude Bélanger-Côté and Jan Saint-Macary — were the successful parties. The court found no fault, no defamatory conduct, and no compensable prejudice on the part of either defendant. No monetary award was granted to the plaintiff; the judgment orders costs against him, though no specific quantum of costs is stated in the decision.