Steven Galloway

Galloway was born in Vancouver, and raised in Kamloops, British Columbia. He attended the University College of the Cariboo and the University of British Columbia (UBC).

Galloway taught creative writing at the University of British Columbia for many years. He also taught writing at Simon Fraser University.[2] He published his first novel, Finnie Walsh, in 2000, a second novel, Ascension, in 2003, and followed this with a third book, The Cellist of Sarajevo, in 2008.[3]

In 2013 Galloway became a tenured associate professor at UBC, and served as acting chair of the creative writing program. In 2014 he published his fourth novel, The Confabulist. In 2015 he was confirmed in the position of chair.[4]

In November 2015, UBC announced that Galloway was suspended from his position with pay because allegations, which were not specified in the announcement, had been made against him.[4] The Faculty Association of UBC criticized the institution for announcing the suspension, stating it was an invasion of privacy. From December to April, Mary Ellen Boyd, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia conducted an investigation on behalf of UBC. In June 2016, Galloway was fired from the university; in announcing Galloway's termination, university spokesperson Philip Steenkamp cited "a record of misconduct that resulted in an irreparable breach of trust". The nature of the misconduct was not made public at the time.[5] The Canadian Press spoke with five of the people who had filed complaints against Galloway, and found that complaints included alleged "sexual harassment, bullying, threats and an incident in which Galloway is accused of slapping a student".[6]

In November 2016, a large group of Canadian authors, including Margaret Atwood and Yann Martel, signed an open letter, written by Joseph Boyden, criticizing UBC for carrying out its investigation in secret and denying Galloway the right to due process. Some of the authors, including Miriam Toews and Wayne Johnston, later withdrew their names and support.[7][8] The letter caused controversy in the Canadian literary community, with some accusing the signatories of taking Galloway's side over that of his accusers.[9]

In December 2016, Galloway revealed that he had had an affair with a student, for which he apologized. According to Galloway's lawyer Dan Burnett, Madame Justice Boyd conducted an exhaustive review of the whole of the evidence and found on a balance of probabilities that Galloway had not committed sexual assault; Boyd also dismissed several other allegations of misconduct against Galloway including all of the allegations brought by additional complainants.[6] In 2018, UBC was forced to pay Galloway $167,000 for violating his privacy rights and damaging his reputation.[10] On July 13, 2018, Galloway published an essay in the Toronto National Post asserting that he was "not a monster," despite what he felt had been a coordinated campaign to paint him as such, and revealed that the woman who had accused him of assault was the one with whom he had had the affair.[11] Steenkamp told a local newspaper the same day, however, that the dismissal was "fully justified" and that the sexual allegations against Galloway were not the only issues the university had considered.[12] This comment was ruled to be a breach of the confidentiality agreement, which forbade public comments on the reasons for Galloway's dismissal.[13]

In October 2018, Galloway filed a defamation lawsuit against the woman who accused him of sexual assault, along with 20 others who had spread the allegations on Twitter and within UBC, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.[14] The defendants contended that this was an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation. Before deciding whether to dismiss the suit, the BC Supreme Court ordered Galloway's accuser to make a series of documents available in discovery. This ruling, which the Supreme Court of Canada declined to review, was upheld by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Robert Bauman and two other judges in April 2020.[15] The disclosure revealed that the accuser (referred to in court documents as A.B.) had copied a Fifth Estate reporter in her initial complaint to UBC president Martha Piper, contradicting some of her previous testimony.[16] Exchanges with reporters led A.B. to write in a subsequent email that was at her insistence read out to all UBC Creative Writing Program Faculty that "the CBC legal team thought my evidence was damning." She referred to this claim as an exaggeration following a statement by CBC that no such vetting had taken place. This assertion of "vetting" was the underpinning of a threat to sue UBC and the Creative Writing Program if they did not acquiesce to her demand to take action against Galloway. As reported in the Globe and Mail, A.B. said:

What I am about to say is not a threat it is a fact: I spoke to a lawyer after I got off the phone with you because there is a case for me to sue the university. ... [There] is almost certainly a strong case for suing the Creative Writing Department. I am stating this as a fact – not a threat!!! I think that skeptical or shocked members of the department might need to know how much more serious this could get for the department. If they don't act.[17]

A nine day hearing on the lawsuit began in April 2021. During the proceedings, one of A.B.'s friends argued that her tweets about Galloway were inconsequential and that she had already suffered career setbacks by criticizing him.[18] Galloway described how the allegations against him had destroyed his career, specifically mentioning the fact that his publisher withdrew a three book contract in 2018, and how he had been reduced to doing manual labor jobs, including cleaning swimming pools, for a living. He also took issue with a critic's review of a 2018 art exhibit, featuring art by A.B., which described the alleged assault without naming Galloway.[19] It was revealed that two defendants, UBC Professors Keith Maillard and Annabel Lyon, had organized the meeting which first alerted other department members to the allegations — a meeting which one attendee described as "[an effort] protect students and faculty" and another described as "a toxic, traumatic event". Maillard and Lyon, who were on A.B.'s committee, rejected claims that their handling of the allegations was related to the fact that they had approved her application to graduate without a complete thesis.[17]

On December 2, 2021, Justice Elaine Adair ruled that Galloway's suit was not a SLAPP suit and allowed him to proceed to trial against all but two of the defendants. Of those who Adair ruled had defamed him, she found that each was motivated by malice.

Regarding AB's false statement to UBC Creative Writing Faculty about the CBC having vetted her claims and offered her a national platform to air them, Adair wrote:

"The CBC Document was a tissue of lies, which A.B. knew was going to be presented at the November Meeting. Indeed, its purpose was to provide “evidence” to “build the case” against Mr. Galloway. The CBC Document was a deliberate fabrication, designed to persuade those attending the November Meeting that Mr. Galloway was guilty of rape, that lawyers at the CBC who had heard A.B.’s story had accepted it as reliable and true, and that the story would be taken to a national audience unless the faculty acted.”[20]

She further writes:

“Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon embraced their roles as A.B.’s allies and advocates in presenting what A.B. described as “our case” against Mr. Galloway. In A.B.’s e-mail communications with Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon before the November Meeting, A.B. never mentioned that she and Mr. Galloway had been in a relationship beginning in 2011 and ending in 2013. Rather, her communications imply the opposite (that she and Mr. Galloway had “no ‘relationship’ whatsoever”), and that Mr. Galloway was continuing to prey on and was a serious threat to her. What A.B. told Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon about her contact with the CBC was a fiction. However, both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon again asked no questions, and the CBC Document was presented at the November Meeting as if it was a true statement of the facts. Neither Professor Maillard nor Professor Lyon contacted Mr. Galloway to warn him about what was going on, or to get his side of events. Indeed, based on Professor Lee's notes of the November Meeting, Professor Maillard went out of his way in a phone call with Mr. Galloway to deceive him. Both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon refused to answer Mr. Galloway's phone calls. In my view, and in the context of the PPPA Applications, all of this provides grounds to believe that Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon were reckless so as to meet the legal test for malice.” [21]

In reference to defendant Chelsea Rooney, Adair ruled that:

“As for Ms. Rooney, on the record, there are grounds to believe that she was motivated by spite and ill-will toward Mr. Galloway. She was clearly pre-disposed to believe the worst of Mr. Galloway, and motivated (with encouragement from A.B., Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon) to recruit others to her point of view. Moreover, and like Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon, Ms. Rooney accepted A.B.’s reports at face value as true, and never asked any questions before communicating Rooney No. 1 to more than a dozen people. Her conduct was, therefore, also reckless.” [22]

The remaining defendants argued that their statements were made without malice and with the intention of furthering discussion on the important societal subject of sexual assault. Adair did not agree. Ruling on Mandi Gray, she wrote:

"In my opinion, Ms. Gray made a deliberate attack on Mr. Galloway, labelling him as someone guilty of criminal acts. Her conduct was reckless and malicious. Her object in posting her statements on Twitter was for a broad audience to see them. There is, in my view, little public interest in protecting reckless and malicious accusations of criminal conduct, especially where published on a social media platform such as Twitter. Rather than promoting responsible reporting of sexual assault and supporting victims, such reckless expressions risk perpetuating myths and stereotypes, a result that is strongly contrary to the public interest."[23]

Ruling on Glynnis Kirchmeier:

"I am also not persuaded that allowing Mr. Galloway's defamation claim to proceed in respect of Kirchmeier No. 1 will deter others from speaking out in favour of reporting sexual assault or to support victims of criminal conduct. There is very little public interest in protecting reckless accusations of criminal conduct, and it is difficult to see how doing so could either encourage reporting or support victims of such conduct. On the other hand, in my opinion, allowing Mr. Galloway's claim to proceed in respect of Kirchmeier No. 1 will deter others from making reckless claims against an individual, and will provide an incentive to tailor their expressions to avoid needlessly defaming an individual."[24]

Ruling on Arielle Rombaugh:

"In the weighing of the public interest in protecting Rombough No. 1, I need to consider that Ms. Rombough made a very serious personal attack on Mr. Galloway (accusing him of criminal conduct), when Ms. Rombough knew nothing about the facts except what might have been gathered from media reports (which may or may not have been reliable). Ms. Rombough had no basis to say that Mr. Galloway was “fired for sexual assault,” based on the media reports of the conclusions in the Boyd Report concerning A.B.’s claims of sexual assault. Ms. Rombough's conduct in posting Rombough No. 1 was not thoughtful but reckless, in my view."[25]

Writing about this hearing in the National Post, Adam Zivo summarized Adair's ruling:

“In response to ongoing harassment, Galloway launched a defamation lawsuit against 25 people, including A.B. The woman and 11 of her supporters responded with an anti-SLAPP objection, arguing that the defamation lawsuit violated their freedom of expression and would have a chilling effect on the reporting of sexual assault. In B.C., and elsewhere, legal actions can be blocked by a court if they are deemed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair firmly rejected this argument in a ruling issued Dec. 2.

If the lawsuit were prevented, “There would be no legal consequences of any kind attached to publicly calling someone a rapist, completely outside of any formal reporting, and no obligation ever to prove the statement was true,” Adair wrote. “No distinction would be made between making a confidential report to an institution … and publishing on Twitter to the world. There would be no recourse — certainly not in civil proceedings — for the person publicly so accused. It is difficult to see how something so extreme and potentially reckless would be in the public interest.” [26]

Adair's decision has been appealed, and a hearing is scheduled to take place in May 2023 in the BC Court of Appeals.[27]

• Steven Galloway and the lessons of The Cellist of Sarajevo at the Toronto Star.com
• Steven Galloway at the University of British Columbia's Creative Writing Program website
• Audio interview re: The Cellist of Sarajevo