The mother of a severely disabled Nova Scotia man has been ordered to pay a former nurse $60,000 in damages for defamatory online posts that a judge says were aimed at destroying the nurse’s reputation.
In the same ruling, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Denise Boudreau was highly critical of a government investigation and report that was the basis of the Facebook posts, calling it devoid of methodology or procedural fairness to the extent of being “entirely inconclusive.”
“The plaintiff is a nurse, she was defamed by the defendant and labelled an ‘abuser’ of a vulnerable person in her care,” wrote Boudreau in her ruling, released earlier this month.
“There is no evidence before me that the plaintiff mistreated MM or anyone else. The suggestion that she did was untrue and unfair. These events caused harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and caused her a great deal of upset, suffering and anguish. The defendant, even today, refuses to apologize or even acknowledge that her actions were unfair and harmed the plaintiff.”
The ruling stems from a September 2016 incident and involves a patient at Emerald Hall at the Nova Scotia Hospital in Dartmouth, N.S. The court ruling also paints a grim picture of conditions at the hall at the time of the incident.
Matthew Meisner is autistic and has a mood disorder and, according to court records, could be violent and unpredictable. On the evening of Sept. 2, 2016, he became disruptive. There was only one nurse working in the hall that night, with one other employee. There were 15 patients.
At one point, Meisner flung feces at the nurse, hitting her in the head. With the help of the other employee and two security guards, Meisner was placed in a restraint chair, where he remained until the morning shift arrived at the hospital. According to Boudreau’s decision, Meisner began spitting on people at that point so a hand towel was draped over the helmet that Meisner wore to protect him from self-harm.
A write-up of the incident mistakenly identified the hand towel as a pillowcase, and a manager who spoke to Meisner’s mother the day after the incident provided her with that incorrect information.
Social media campaign against nurse
Tracey Meisner repeated that claim in media interviews over the following days and weeks.
“While the plaintiff knew this allegation was untrue, as a nurse she was forbidden from discussing the care of any patient with third parties,” wrote Boudreau. “As a result, she was unable to publicly defend herself.”
Meisner also repeated the assertion that the nurse was overheard questioning whether Matthew Meisner’s excrement was “retarded.” The nurse testified that she actually questioned whether it was “infected,” given that she’d been struck in the side of the head. She also denied she made the comment where the patient could hear her.
In November, the plaintiff saw pictures of herself on Meisner’s Facebook page, accompanied by captions naming her as an abuser and comparing her to a child molester. The posts were seen by “numerous people,” according to the ruling, and the plaintiff was repeatedly contacted by media for a response to the allegations. She was “extremely upset,” contacted police and took a stress-related leave from work.
Boudreau wrote that it’s understandable that Tracey Meisner was upset by what she had been told, even though it was incorrect.
“None of this gave the defendant licence to unfairly and harshly single out the plaintiff, identify her in a public forum, and undertake a campaign to destroy her reputation,” the judge wrote.
“The defendant’s Facebook postings were not, and could not, be described as ‘fair comment’.”
Flawed investigation
Nova Scotia Health won’t comment on this specific case, citing patient confidentiality. But the authority says when it receives a complaint about possible patient abuse, it is obliged to report it to the Department of Health and Wellness, which assigned one of its own investigators.
That investigator was Joanne Blight. Boudreau was highly critical of her work, which led to both a preliminary and final report into the incident.
“The report provided minimal (or even a total absence of) ‘fact-checking’; to be blunt, one wonders if some of the identified ‘facts’ were actually only rumours about the event,” wrote the judge. “No source individuals or materials were identified in the report; it contained no identified methodology which could be assessed … in my view, the Blight Report is entirely inconclusive.”
Boudreau noted that despite testifying in defence of the report, Blight “had great difficulty justifying” it and became quite defensive.
“Perhaps she herself recognized, while being questioned, that her ‘report’ was seriously lacking,” wrote the judge.
Tracey Meisner based her social media attacks on the nurse on the findings in Blight’s report.
‘Truly unfortunate’ case
Testifying at the trial, the nurse described the toll this took on her as people would point at her and whisper about her when she went out in public. She developed PTSD as a result.
Boudreau noted that the Nova Scotia College of Nursing conducted its own investigation into the incident and exonerated her.
No one from Nova Scotia Health was available for an interview about the case. However, in a statement to CBC News, a spokesperson said the organization had conducted its own extensive review of practices at Emerald Hall prior to the 2016 incident and changes were introduced in 2019.
Now, only those who truly need it are admitted to the facility. If a client is not in an acute phase of their illness, the policy is to provide their care in the community. The number of beds has been reduced from 19 to nine and staffing levels have been increased.
Emerald Hall is now known as the adult neurodevelopmental stabilization unit.
Boudreau summarized the case as “truly unfortunate.”
“The events of September 3, 2016, at Emerald Hall were unpleasant and upsetting. Subsequently, the defendant was given incomplete and inaccurate information about the situation. Given what she was told, coupled with her other concerns, she was understandably upset,” wrote the judge.
“It is truly unfortunate that the defendant has refused to accept that her earlier assumptions or beliefs about the events of September 3 may have been based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Most unfortunate of all, the defendant seems entirely unable to understand or acknowledge that her actions have been the cause of harm to the plaintiff.”
