Former UBC Student Describes ‘Outrageous’ Rhetoric in Emails as Steven Galloway Defamation Trial Continues
Olivia Singh
10/21/20265 min read
A former University of British Columbia creative writing student told a B.C. Supreme Court defamation trial that she was “shocked” and “horrified” by language used in a mass email circulated while allegations against author and former professor Steven Galloway were being gathered.
Cara Woodruff, a graduate of UBC’s creative writing program, testified that she received the email in November 2015 from fellow writer Chelsea Rooney.
Rooney was gathering complaints involving Galloway at the time.
Woodruff characterized the language in the email as “inflated and outrageous” and said recipients were encouraged to anonymously contact a Canadian Press reporter about allegations against Galloway.
Her testimony forms part of Galloway’s ongoing civil lawsuit, in which the former UBC professor alleges that statements made about him caused serious damage to his reputation and writing career.
The court has been hearing evidence about how allegations concerning Galloway were circulated, investigated and discussed within the university community.
Witness Questions Rooney’s Role
Woodruff told the court that Rooney had been speaking on behalf of a woman identified only as A.B., whose identity is protected by a publication ban.
She said she understood A.B. to be vulnerable and in need of support at the time.
But Woodruff testified that she was confused by Rooney’s involvement because A.B. had previously expressed distrust toward her.
“A.B. had mentioned before that she didn’t like Chelsea. She didn’t trust her,” Woodruff said, adding that she did not understand why Rooney was acting “like a detective.”
Woodruff also told the court that she did not believe Galloway had sexually assaulted A.B.
She said she repeatedly encouraged A.B. to report the matter to police so the allegation could be investigated through the criminal justice system.
Galloway was never criminally charged in connection with A.B.’s allegations.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
Rooney Issued Apology Before Trial
Rooney issued a public apology to Galloway earlier this month, shortly before the defamation trial began.
In the statement, Rooney said she had come to understand that her conduct toward Galloway had been serious and harmful.
She said she deeply regretted contributing to the harm he experienced.
Rooney also said she had been asked by UBC, A.B. and faculty members to gather complaints about Galloway.
But she acknowledged that she had no information establishing that the serious allegations being made against him were true.
Woodruff Says Situation Was Unclear
Woodruff told the court that she felt “blindsided” when she first learned about the allegations because she had been friends with A.B.
She said it was unclear to her whether a criminal investigation was actually taking place.
“It was so vague,” Woodruff testified. “But it was a very complex situation. It just didn’t make sense to me.”
A.B. is not expected to testify in the current trial.
The court has also heard that she is not advancing a defence asserting that the allegations she made against Galloway are true.
Galloway’s Career at UBC
Galloway is the author of several novels, including The Cellist of Sarajevo and The Confabulist.
He was a tenured professor and served as chair of UBC’s creative writing program before allegations against him became public.
Although he was never criminally charged in relation to A.B.’s allegations, he was ultimately dismissed from his position at the university.
The current case centres not on whether criminal charges should have been laid, but on whether statements made by the defendants were defamatory and, if so, whether any legal defences apply.
Former UBC Official Testifies
The court also heard Tuesday from Stephen Bohnen, a former UBC community relations officer.
Bohnen was involved in documenting an earlier complaint made by A.B. against Galloway in 2013.
During questioning, Galloway’s lawyer referred Bohnen to an email from A.B. that mentioned a person identified as “Steve,” whom she described as the head of campus security.
According to the email, that person had allegedly referred to Galloway as a “serial predator.”
Bohnen testified that he was not the head of campus security.
When asked whether he had ever used that description, he said he could not recall doing so and had no reason at the time to view Galloway as anything other than a university professor.
Bohnen also testified that A.B.’s earlier report involved sexual harassment rather than an allegation of sexual assault.
Self-Represented Defendant Questions UBC’s Handling
Another defendant, Glynnis Kirchmeier, who is representing herself, questioned Bohnen about how UBC handled complaints against professors.
Justice Neena Sharma interrupted part of the questioning to ask how it related to the issues in the defamation case.
Kirchmeier said she intends to argue that UBC’s handling of A.B.’s complaint affected what she later believed and said publicly.
She told the court she plans to argue that failures in the university process made it reasonable for her to believe A.B. and to distrust the findings of a subsequent investigation.
That investigation was conducted by a former judge retained by UBC, who ultimately found the allegations under review were unsubstantiated.
Sharma allowed Kirchmeier to continue questioning Bohnen, while noting that she was not yet certain how the argument would fit into the legal issues before the court.
Court Hears About False Claim Over Media Vetting
The trial also revisited earlier evidence involving a statement made by A.B.
The court heard that during a 2019 cross-examination on an affidavit, A.B. acknowledged that she had falsely claimed that a broadcaster’s legal team had vetted her account.
Galloway’s lawyer, Daniel Burnett, read portions of the earlier transcript into the record.
In that testimony, A.B. said she made the claim because she desperately wanted UBC to proceed with an investigation.
“I don’t regret what I said because I needed to keep myself alive and safe,” she said in the transcript read to the court.
She also said she believed women faced significant barriers when trying to have allegations investigated.
The admission is among the pieces of evidence being examined as Galloway’s legal team challenges the reliability of statements made about him.
Media Contact Also Examined
The court has previously heard from a producer who contacted Galloway after allegations began circulating publicly.
Galloway testified earlier in the trial that the producer was the first journalist to call him after the allegations emerged.
He said his response at the time was “no comment.”
The sequence of media contacts has become relevant to the lawsuit because Galloway alleges that the public circulation of the allegations caused lasting harm to both his reputation and professional career.
Dispute Over Expert Evidence
Later Tuesday, lawyers for A.B. argued against allowing a report from a publishing industry expert to be admitted into evidence.
Galloway alleges that the controversy surrounding the allegations effectively destroyed his career as an author.
His legal team is seeking to present evidence about the professional and financial impact the allegations allegedly had on his publishing prospects.
The defendants are challenging aspects of that evidence.
Trial Examining How Allegations Spread
The case is increasingly focused on the chain of events that followed the initial complaints against Galloway.
That includes who heard the allegations, how they were characterized, what individuals knew at the time, what efforts were made to verify the claims and how information eventually reached journalists and the wider public.
Those distinctions are significant in a defamation case.
The court must assess not only what was said but the circumstances in which it was said, what the defendants knew or reasonably believed, and whether their statements are protected by any recognized defence under Canadian defamation law.
Galloway maintains that false and damaging allegations caused profound harm to his reputation and career.
The defendants are advancing their own individual responses and defences to his claims.
The trial remains ongoing, and the court has not yet made findings on the ultimate defamation allegations.
News
Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.
SUBSCRIBE
© 2026 Innovatory Labs Inc. All rights reserved.
LINKS