Angle et al. v. LaPierre et al., (2008) 425 A.R. 378 (CA)

• Judge: Berger, Costigan and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 28, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 425 A.R. 378 (CA);2008 ABCA 120

Angle v. LaPierre (2008), 425 A.R. 378 (CA);

      418 W.A.C. 378

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. AP.007

Stephen John Angle, Garry James Bowe, Barry William Litun, Christine Johanna Chappell, Richard Walter Mueller, Valerie Arlene Riewe and the Alberta Teachers' Association (respondents/appellants by cross-appeal/plaintiffs) v. Denis LaPierre and Schoolworks! Inc. (appellants/respondents by cross-appeal/defendants) and Dawna McGowan, Ken McGowan, Roger Taylor and Robyn Reid (not parties to appeal/defendants)

(0603-0217-AC; 2008 ABCA 120)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger, Costigan and Watson, JJ.A.

March 28, 2008.

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, in a judgment reported (2006), 392 A.R. 1, allowed the action and assessed general damages against the respective defendants. A claim for aggravated damages was dismissed. Two of the defendants (website operator and its directing mind) appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in rejecting the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment. The plaintiffs cross-appealed, seeking increased damages and a finding that some instances of qualified privilege were defeated by malice.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2041

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

Libel and Slander - Topic 2981

Defences - Qualified privilege - General - The Alberta Court of Appeal 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 27.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "it is trite law that the foundation of qualified privilege is the requirement of a reciprocal duty and interest between the publisher and the recipient of the impugned statement" - See paragraph 9.

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 trial judge held that LaPierre was not protected by qualified privilege - The trial judge 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 - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed that the defence of qualified privilege failed - See paragraphs 9 to 20.

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 trial judge 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." - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the rejection of the defence of fair comment - See paragraphs 21 to 23.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - Elements and considerations - The trial judge 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" - 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 - The trial judge awared the plaintiffs a total of $11,511 in general damages against LaPierre and Schoolworks! jointly and severally - The plaintiffs cross-appealed, seeking increased damages - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal where the trial judge, owed a high degree of deference in defamation cases, committed no error in principle and the award was not unreasonable - See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

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. 9].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 311; 26 N.R. 242, refd to. [para. 9].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 10].

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

Jones v. Bennett, [1969] S.C.R. 277, refd to. [para. 11].

Jameel et al. v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, [2006] 3 W.L.R. 642; 362 N.R. 314 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

Gibbs v. Jalbert (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 302; 115 W.A.C. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Retail Wholesale Union et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 2000; 2003 BCSC 2000, refd to. [para. 16].

Christie v. Geiger and Edmonton Sun (1984), 58 A.R. 168; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 316 (Q.B.), affd. (1986), 74 A.R. 1; 1986 CarswellAlta 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Varga v. Van Panhuis (2000), 269 A.R. 211 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Independent Canadian Transit Union et al. (1997), 203 A.R. 204; 49 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Edmonton Sun et al. (1986), 75 A.R. 253; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 141 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Pope et al. v. O'Halloran et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 137; 354 W.A.C. 137; 2005 ABCA 263, refd to. [para. 26].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182, refd to. [para. 30].

Herron et al. v. Hunting Chase Inc. et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 53; 299 W.A.C. 53; 2003 ABCA 219, refd to. [para. 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed.) (1999 Looseleaf Supp.), vol. 2, p. 13-239 [para. 14].

Counsel:

S.S.M. Anderson, for the respondents/appellants by cross-appeal;

P.D. Kirwin, for the appellants/respondents by cross-appeal.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on November 30, 2007, before Berger, Costigan and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On March 28, 2008, Berger, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.