Angle et al. v. LaPierre et al., (2006) 392 A.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: Clackson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 24, 2005
• Citations: (2006), 392 A.R. 1 (QB);2006 ABQB 198

Angle v. LaPierre (2006), 392 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. MR.132

Stephen John Angle, Garry James Bowe, Barry William Litun, Christine Johanna Chappell, Richard Walter Mueller, Valerie Arlene Riewe and the Alberta Teachers' Association (plaintiffs) v. Denis LaPierre, SchoolWorks!Inc., Dawna McGowan, Ken McGowan, Roger Taylor and Robyn Reid (defendants)

(0203 10914; 2006 ABQB 198)

Indexed As: Angle et al. v. LaPierre et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Clackson, J.

March 13, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, involved in education as principals, teachers, members of the Board of Trustees and employees of the Alberta Teachers' Association, brought a defamation action for damages against four parents and an internet website and its operator. The action related to critical oral and written statements by the parents respecting decisions and conduct by the respective plaintiffs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and assessed general damages against the respective defendants. A claim for aggravated damages was dismissed.

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Examples of defamatory words - A parent made oral and written statements that her child's principal operated a racist program that discriminated against non-aboriginal students, that he transferred school funds to benefit those handful of students and her son was denied participation in the program because the principal stated that he was "not Indian enough" - None of the statements were true - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the principal's defamation action against the parent - The statements were defamatory - The defence of truth and justification failed where the statements were not true - The defence of qualified privilege failed because of the parent's malice, where she repeated false statements for an ulterior motive - She was admittedly out to destroy the principal because of ongoing disputes with him respecting her child - Finally, the defence of fair comment failed where the statements of fact were proved to be untrue and, in any event, the statements were motivated by malice - See paragraphs 64 to 99.

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Examples of defamatory words - A parent made written statements to school and government officials that her child's principal lied about the destruction of a disk containing the pictures and Alberta Education numbers of students and that he stole personal information about students - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the principal's defamation action - Calling the principal a liar and a thief was defamatory - The defence of fair comment was not available because the parent's statements were not true (i.e., principal had not lied or stolen information) - Although qualified privilege applied to statements made to the public officials, the defence was lost where the dominant motive for making the statements was malice - See paragraphs 103 to 111.

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Examples of defamatory words - A parent published statements respecting her son's involvement in a schoolyard fight that the principal told her that there was nothing he could do about it - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the words were defamatory, as "the clear inference in these words is that the principal was lazy, incompetent, neglectful and unwilling or unable to deal with a matter of child safety" - See paragraph 118.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1405

Identification of person defamed - General - Group or class defamation - A parent having constant confrontations with a principal circulated a petition calling for the school board to take action to prevent teachers from hiding behind school division policy and querying whether criminal checks on the staff had been done - The parent submitted that the defamatory statement did not identify any of the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs argued that the teachers in the school division were an identifiable group and all felt the sting of the defamation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the parent was not liable, because "the sting is not felt by all teachers but only those who may be hiding behind policy. Therefore, it cannot be said that average right thinking and reasonable persons knowing [the plaintiffs] would consider them to have been stung by these words" - See paragraphs 119 to 124.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2041

Publication - Republication - General - [See second Libel and Slander - Topic 3109 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2981

Defences - Qualified privilege - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the following summary of the principles relating to the limits of the defence of qualified privilege: "1. The defence of qualified privilege is not absolute. 2. If actual or express malice is the dominant motive for publishing the statement, the privilege is defeated. 3. If the occasion is shown to be privileged, not all statements made on the occasion will be protected by the privilege. 4. A statement which is not reasonably appropriate in the context of the circumstances existing on the occasion will, if defamatory, not be protected by the privilege. A statement will not be reasonably appropriate if it is the product of indirect motive or ulterior purpose or if it conflicts with the sense of duty or the mutual interest that the occasion created. 5. If the defendant is acting in accordance with a sense of duty or in a bona fide desire to protect his own legitimate interests, knowledge that publication of the statement will have the effect of injuring the plaintiff is insufficient, standing alone, to destroy the privilege." - See paragraph 83.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the defence of qualified privilege was occasion specific - To succeed in the defence, reciprocity was necessary - To establish reciprocity, the defendant must prove that "on the occasion of publication, she was speaking or writing to discharge some public or private duty or interest and the persons to whom she spoke or wrote had a corresponding duty or interest in hearing or reading those words" - See paragraph 76.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "qualified privilege does not protect a person who publishes defamatory material simply because he believes there are others who might be interested in reading it. If that was all that was required for qualified privilege to apply, there would be no limit on what the unscrupulous might publish. In order to balance freedom of speech and the protection of reputation, the law extends qualified privilege only to those occasions where the party publishing feels compelled to do so to discharge some public or private duty or interest and the persons to whom the party publishes have a corresponding duty or interest in hearing or reading the words published. In addition, the publisher must act honestly, believing in the truth of the words published." - See paragraph 199.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Where limits of privilege exceeded - LaPierre posted defamatory statements on his SchoolWorks!Inc. website - At issue was whether publication to the world at large on the internet was too broad to permit LaPierre to plead qualified privilege, where not all persons had a corresponding duty or interest in hearing or reading the defamatory words - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that LaPierre was not protected by qualified privilege - The court stated that "a publication which is distributed beyond those with a reciprocal interest or duty in receiving the publication cannot be said to be protected by qualified privilege." - The court rejected LaPierre's submission that since the plaintiffs took the matter into the broader public forum, he was entitled to use that same forum for his publications, because the plaintiffs had kept the matter in the private arena - See paragraphs 189 to 214.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Honest expression of opinion - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a defendant relying on the defence of fair comment must prove that "(i) the words are comment and not a statement of fact; (ii) there is a basis of fact for the comment contained or referred to in the matter complained of; and (iii) it is a matter of public interest. ... Fair comment must be based on facts which are included in the communication or indicated with sufficient clarity to lay a proper foundation for the comment. Comment in the guise of fact is not protected. The comment must be fair. However, it need not be reasonable or tempered. The defence is available even in situations where the comment is severe, vehement, vitriolic or extravagant. The test is whether the comment might reasonably be regarded as an opinion that a fair-minded person could have under the circumstances." - See paragraphs 93, 95.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3108

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Public interest - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 3107 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 3109

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Truth - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 3107 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 3109

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Truth - LaPierre's website (SchoolWorks!Inc.) published a cease and desist letter sent to a parent who repeatedly defamed the plaintiff school principal and others, the parent's defamatory response to the letter and his own comments - LaPierre submitted that he was protected by fair comment where he accurately published and commented on statements spoken or written by others even if what they said was untrue - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated: "I disagree. The publisher's obligation is to publish truth, the proof of which lies on the publisher. Each publisher of a defamatory piece is as liable as the next, unless the piece is proved true or some other defence applies. ... It is only the requirement that fair comment be the honest opinion of the publisher that has been eliminated by the Defamation Act in relation to one person publishing the comments of another. The facts on which the comments are based must still be proved to be true." - See paragraph 197.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4061

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair comment or qualified privilege - General - [See first and second Libel and Slander - Topic 642 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that where defamation was proved damage was presumed - Damages were intended to vindicate the plaintiff and compensate for wounded feelings - Where a corporation was defamed, damages were limited to vindication, as a corporation had no feelings to wound - See paragraphs 299 to 300.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - Elements and considerations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench listed the following factors as relevant to assessing damages for defamation: whether the defamatory statements were widely published; whether the setting and persons involved lent credibility and significance to the defamatory statements; whether the defendants repeated the defamatory statements knowing them to be false (including recklessness as to truth); whether the defendants pleaded justification and truth knowing the statements were false; whether the plaintiff was a professional in a position of trust and responsibility; whether the plaintiff suffered personally as well as reputationally; and whether the plaintiff had a reputation to tarnish or was voluntarily engaged in a "mud-slinging match" - See paragraphs 302 to 304.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - Aggravated damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed a defamed plaintiff's request for aggravated damages - Aggravated damages were compensatory and all of the harm suffered by the plaintiff was adequately compensated for in the award of general damages - See paragraphs 331 to 333.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4430

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - Where corporation or business defamed - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4421 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gates et al. v. The Standard et al., [2004] O.T.C. 314 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

Pope et al. v. O'Halloran et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 137; 354 W.A.C. 137; 2005 ABCA 263, refd to. [para. 75].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 75].

Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (2000), 105 O.T.C. 91; 48 O.R.(3d) 656 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2001), 147 O.A.C. 317; 54 O.R.(3d) 612 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al. (1999), 250 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 77].

Wagner and Ksiazek v. Lim (1994), 158 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84].

Teskey v. Canadian Newspapers Co. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 383; 68 O.R.(2d) 737 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1990), 105 N.R. 79; 71 O.R.(2d) x (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309, refd to. [para. 89].

Christie v. Geiger and Edmonton Sun (1984), 58 A.R. 168 (Q.B.), affd. (1987), 74 A.R. 1; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 51 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 80 A.R. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Edmonton Sun et al. (1986), 75 A.R. 253 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 123].

Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 275, refd to. [para. 197].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 197].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Jones v. Bennett, [1969] S.C.R. 277, refd to. [para. 202].

Fraser v. Sykes (1971), 19 D.L.R.(3d) 75 (Alta. C.A.), affd. [1974] S.C.R. 526, refd to. [para. 202].

Moises v. Canadian Newspaper Co. (1996), 76 B.C.A.C. 263; 125 W.A.C. 263; 24 B.C.L.R.(3d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 202].

Campbell v. Jones (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 616 A.P.R. 212; 2001 NSSC 139, revd. (2002), 209 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 656 A.P.R. 81; 2002 NSCA 128, refd to. [para. 203]. Parlett v. Robinson (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 247 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 205].

Globe & Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 206].

Campbell v. Campbell, 1999 CarswellOnt 2967 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 222].

Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Independent Canadian Transit Union (1997), 195 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 304].

Walker and Walker Brothers Quarries Ltd. v. CFTO Ltd. et al. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 10; 59 O.R.(2d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 331].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1995), paras. 15-56 to 15-59 [para. 95].

Gatley, Clement, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), pp. 592, 593 [para. 301].

Counsel:

Sandra M. Anderson and Geoff Hope (Field Atkinson Perraton LLP), for the plaintiffs;

Pat Kirwin (Kirwin & Kirwin), for the defendants, Denis LaPierre and SchoolWorks!;

Brian Fish (Brian Fish Law Office), for the defendants, Ken and Dawna McGowan;

Lorena Harris (Fraser Milner Casgrain), for the defendant, Robyn Reid, in the presentation of evidence and argument only.

This action was heard on October 24, 2005, before Clackson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on March 13, 2006.