ATU v. ICTU, (1997) 195 A.R. 161 (QB)

• Judge: Lutz, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 28, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: (1997), 195 A.R. 161 (QB)

ATU v. ICTU (1997), 195 A.R. 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

James Daley as a representative of the Amalgamated Transit Union and the said Amalgamated Transit Union; Ron Sentell as a representative of Local 1374 of the Amalgamated Transit Union and the said Local 1374 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, and James Daley, Ron Sentell and Bruce Chalmers (plaintiffs) v. Hunter Wallace as a representative of the Independent Canadian Transit Union and the said Independent Canadian Transit Union, Hunter Wallace and Terry Palfrey (defendants)

(Action No. 8901-16328)

Indexed As: Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Independent Canadian Transit Union et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Lutz, J.

February 28, 1997.

Summary:

The U.S. based Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Canadian based Inde­pendent Canadian Transit Union (ICTU) were rival unions in a bitter 15 year state of conflict for the same employees. ICTU, through newsletters and pamphlets system­atically attacked ATU, some of its officers and an ATU local, in an orchestrated effort to lure ATU unionized employees to its union. ATU, the local and ATU officers sued ICTU and others for damages for defamation. ICTU pleaded qualified privilege and fair comment. ICTU and the other de­fendants counterclaimed for damages.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and awarded all plaintiffs general and punitive damages. The ICTU deliberately defamed the ATU and its officers, with malice. Accordingly, the de­fences of qualified privilege and fair com­ment were not available. The court dismissed the counterclaim.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - [See second Libel and Slander - Topic 4429 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2015

Exemplary or punitive damages - Libel and slander - [See both Libel and Slan­der - Topic 4429 ].

Evidence - Topic 2401

Presumptions - Specific presumptions - Inference from failure to call available evidence - The plaintiffs claimed that an adverse inference should be drawn by the defendants' failure to call potential witnesses - The defendants claimed that they had no obligation to call every rel­evant witness to testify to the same matter over and over - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the defendants have offered explanations for not calling these witnesses that are sufficient to counteract the inference that they were not called because it was feared they would give evidence harmful to the defendants' case" - See paragraphs 47 to 51.

Libel and Slander - Topic 66

General - Persons liable - Joint liability - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the following statement re­specting the apportionment of liability between multiple defendants found liable for defamation: "all person who are involved in the commission of a joint tort are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by that tort. If one person writes a libel, another repeats, and a third approves what is written, they all have made the defamatory libel. Both the person who originally utters the defamatory state­ment, and the individual who expresses agreement with it, are liable for the injury. It would thus be inappropriate and wrong in law to have a jury attempt to apportion liability either for general or for special damages between the joint tortfeasors." - See paragraph 413.

Libel and Slander - Topic 603

The statement - General - Defamatory defined - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a defamatory statement is one which has: 'a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers, which lowers him in the estimation of the right thinking members of society, and in particular which causes him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem ... The real test is "Would the words tend to lower the plain­tiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally?"' ... Com­ments discrediting a man in his pro­fessional capacity have been held to be defamatory: 'it is defamatory to impute to a man in any office any corrupt, dishonest or fraudulent conduct or other misconduct or inefficiency in it, or any unfitness or want of ability to discharge his duties, and this is so whether the office be public or private, or whether it be one of profit, honour or trust.' ... it is also defamatory to allege that a trade union official is untrust­worthy, fraudulent, dishonest or disloyal ... or that he misused union funds" - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - Defamatory statements - What constitute - Examples of defamatory words - The U.S. based Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Canadian based Independent Canadian Transit Union (ICTU) were rival unions in a 15 year state of conflict for the same employees - ICTU, through newsletters and pamphlets systematically attacked ATU, some of its officers and an ATU local, in an orches­trated effort to lure ATU unionized employees to its union - ICTU portrayed the ATU as an American-dominated, incompetent money drain with no regard to the rank and file union members - ICTU made knowingly false statements (or made recklessly without regard for the truth) concerning, inter alia, the ATU constitu­tion and statements alleging that the ATU and certain officers lied and were inept - It was a deliberate contemptuous attack on the ATU for the sole purpose of injuring it - The ICTU showed a blatant disregard for the truth and a wilful blindness to fact combined with spite and ill-will - The ICTU pleaded qualified privilege and fair comment - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the statements were clear­ly defamatory of ATU and its officers; that qualified privilege and fair comment were not established and, even if they were, the ICTU's whole course of conduct was malicious, thereby precluding any defence of qualified privilege or fair comment - See paragraphs 1 to 348.

Libel and Slander - Topic 651

The statement - Defamatory statements - What constitute - From cartoon - Certain allegedly defamatory statements were contained in cartoons, which the defend­ants claimed were not defamatory because they were in jest - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in rejecting the defendants' submission, stated that "the statement is judged by the standard of an ordinary, right-thinking member of society. Hence the test is an objective one, and it is no defence to say that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, or uttered by way of a joke. A tendency to injure or lower the reputation of the plaintiffs suf­fices, for 'if words are used which impute discreditable conduct to my friend, he has been defamed to me, although I do not believe the imputation, and may even know that it is untrue'. Hence it is settled that a statement may be defamatory although no one believes it to be true." - See paragraph 27.

Libel and Slander - Topic 652

The statement - Defamatory statements - What constitute - Test for - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 603 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 748

The statement - Defamatory statements - What constitute - Slander - Respecting a person's profession, trade or office - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 603 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 904

The statement - Innuendo - Burden of proof - Defendants sued for damages for defamation submitted that at worst the impugned statements and publication were defamatory innuendo, which was more difficult for the plaintiff to prove - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, with respect to innuendo, agreed that "where the words are not defamatory in their plain and ordinary meaning, but only by virtue of facts or circumstances attending the publication, the plaintiff must set out in his statement of claim the specific defamatory meaning which they conveyed to the per­sons to whom they were published. ... Where the words are not defamatory in their plain and ordinary sense, the plaintiff may set out and prove facts and circum­stances attending the publication which give the words, by way of innuendo, a defamatory meaning" - See paragraph 35.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that "a statement is made on a privileged occasion if it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, or for the purpose of pur­suing or protecting some private interest, provided that it is made to a person who has some corresponding interest in receiv­ing it. The duty may be either legal, social or moral. The test is whether persons of ordinary intelligence and moral principle, or the great majority of right-minded persons, would have considered it a duty to communicate the information to those to whom it was published. A privilege is recognized where a person seeks to protect or further his own legitimate interests, or those of another, or interests which he shares with someone else, or in the inter­ests of the public generally. It does not extend to comments that go beyond the exigency of the occasion, or which are communicated to those who have no inter­est in receiving that information ... before a defendant can rely on a defence of qual­ified privilege he must have acted honest­ly, in good faith and without malice." - See paragraphs 101 to 102.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of mal­ice - [See first Libel and Slander - Topic 4007 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Where limits of privilege exceeded - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the defence of qualified privilege is lost if the publication is made to persons other than those having a common interest in the subject matter" - See paragraph 89.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3108

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Public interest - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "for defamatory comments to be protected by the defence of fair comment, they must be comments as opposed to statements of fact, made honestly, in good faith, and about facts which are true on a matter of public interest. ... On the surface, union affairs are not of immediate public con­cern, and the union publications in ques­tion do not appear to have an immediate and direct impact upon the public." - However, since malice was established (precluding the defence of fair comment), the court stated that it was unnecessary to decide whether union affairs represented a matter of "public interest" - See para­graphs 152 to 154.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3144

Defences - Consent - What constitutes consent - Defendants in a defamation action claimed the plaintiffs consented to publication of the defamatory statements - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "consent may be express or implied and manifested either by words or actions. The defence is available to a defendant where the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consents to the publication of defamatory remarks, the statements are relevant to the purpose for which the consent is given, and the publication is made to those who have a legitimate interest in the informa­tion" - Although the plaintiffs did publish certain statements about themselves that were later repeated by the defendants, the plaintiffs published the information under circumstances where the audience would understand them in an innocent sense - The context in which the defendants used the statements negated any notion of con­sent - Further, the delay in commencing a defamation action did not constitute con­sent to the defamatory statements - See paragraphs 111 to 119.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4007

Malice - General - What constitutes mal­ice - The plaintiff and defendant were rival unions with a long history of compe­tition, raids and animosity - Each wished the demise of the other and there was hostility between the unions and their leaders personally - The plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation - The defendant pleaded qualified privilege and fair com­ment - The plaintiff claimed malice, which would defeat both defences - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that malice had been proved: "[the defendants] did not have an honest belief in the truth of their statements, and were not acting in good faith, but with the malicious intention of damaging the reputations of the plaintiffs in any way possible. The statements were made as part of a conscious and deliberate campaign to harass and discredit the plain­tiffs." - See paragraphs 69 to 106.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4007

Malice - General - What constitutes mal­ice - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "malice can be found where the published statements are false, and are known to be false by the defendant. ... the conduct of the parties, or the manner of use of the words can indicate the presence of malice. ... Malice may also be shown if there is evidence that the defendant acted out of 'gross and unreasoning prejudice', vindictiveness, intemperance, or in the heat of unreasoning anger. ... Repetition of defamatory remarks is another relevant factor. ... Where a publication is made recklessly and without proper or adequate inquiries as to the truth of the matters therein, that is evidence of malice" - See paragraphs 69 to 86.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4061

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair com­ment or qualified privilege - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that where a defendant pleads fair comment or qual­ified privilege, the onus of proving malice (which would defeat the defences) is on the plaintiff - Notwithstanding that onus, the court agreed that in certain circum­stances "the affirmative evidence of malice may be sufficiently cogent to require the defendant to answer it or stand con­demned" - See paragraphs 70 to 71.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4406

Damages - General - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "where there is no plea of justification, evidence of the truth of the statements is inadmissible for the purpose of mitigating damages, but it is admissible for other purposes, such as establishing the defences of fair comment or qualified privilege" - Further, rule 254 provided that in defama­tion actions where justification was not pleaded "the defendant is not entitled on the trial to give evidence-in-chief (with a view to mitigate damages) as to the char­acter of the plaintiff without leave of the Judge, unless seven days at least before the trial he furnishes particulars to the plain­tiff of the matters as to which he intends to give evidence" - Where, as here, the de­fendants did not provide the mandated particulars, they could not give evidence on the plaintiffs' reputation in order to mitigate damages - See paragraphs 56 to 61.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4406

Damages - General - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "evidence of prior publication of the libel complained of is inadmissible to show the plaintiffs' poor reputation" - The court agreed that "a defendant who has not justified his defamatory statements cannot mitigate the damages for which he is liable by producing evidence of other publication to the same effect as his" - See paragraph 62.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "general damages are presumed by virtue of the publication of the false statement and are awarded at large. ... Damages are available as a shield to those who serve others, and to discourage persons who impute improper motives to those who serve. Likewise, damages act as encouragement for those contemplating service" - See paragraphs 392 to 393.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the availability of puni­tive damages in a defamation action - The court agreed that "awards of general and aggravated damages alone might simply be regarded as a licence fee for continuing a character assassination. The protection of a person's reputation arising from publica­tion of false and injurious statements must be effective. The most effective means of protection will be supplied by the knowl­edge that fines in the form of punitive damages may be awarded in cases where the defendant's conduct is truly outrage­ous." - See paragraph 400.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - The defendant Canadian union et al. maliciously defamed the rival plain­tiff American union and three of its officers in an orchestrated attempt to destroy the union for its own benefit - The officers were subjected to ridicule and scorn, were threatened, greeted with obscene gestures and had their reputations tarnished - The union suffered damage notwithstanding that unlike a person, it could not suffer hurt feelings or mental anguish - A union survived on trust and reputation - The defendants had under­mined that, with lasting effects - The defendants offered no apology and still showed no remorse - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff union and a local each $100,000 general damages and $75,000 and $50,000 punitive damages respectively - The court awarded the officers general damages of $200,000, $50,000 and $50,000 respectively and punitive damages of $50,000, $15,000 and $15,000 respectively, for a total of $705,000 - See paragraphs 349 to 417.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4444

Damages - Mitigation - The apology - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a party who has defamed another should remedy the situation by swiftly making and publishing an unconditional apology. ... Failure to apologize or retract may increase damages. .. a false or insin­cere apology may aggravate damages" - See paragraphs 143, 406 to 408.

Libel and Slander - Topic 5461

Evidence - Burden of proof - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the plaintiff in a defamation action had to prove that there was publication or dis­tribution to third parties of a defamatory statement referring to or identifying the plaintiff - The court assumed the state­ments were false and the plaintiff was of good character and reputation - The onus then shifted to the defendant to prove that the statements were substantially true (justification), that the statements were fair comment, based on true facts and made in good faith, or that the statements were made in circumstances of qualified privi­lege - Once the defendant established a defence of justification, there was no lia­bility - If the defence of fair comment or qualified privilege was established, the onus shifted to the plaintiff to prove mal­ice, which defeated both defences - If defamation was proved, general damages were presumed, but the plaintiff had to prove substantial or punitive damages - See paragraphs 43 to 46.

Practice - Topic 5287

Trials - Evidence - Order of witnesses - The plaintiffs sued the defendants (includ­ing Wallace) for defamation - The plain­tiff submitted that since Wallace testified only after listening to the evidence of 31 other witnesses, including 15 speaking on his behalf, his testimony should receive less weight - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to possible diffi­culties ranging from "deliberate tailoring of evidence, to less tangible difficulties like better presentation of evidence, and better preparation for cross-examination" - Here, there was no clear evidence that Wallace's testimony was tailored to that offered by previous witnesses, but "I cannot exclude the possibility that he was better prepared than he might otherwise have been. I do not consider this possibility to be determi­native of the credibility of his evidence, since preparation is not itself a fault." - See paragraphs 53 to 55.

Torts - Topic 6251

Abuse of legal procedure - Abuse of process - General - Defendants in a de­famation action claimed the plaintiffs were guilty of abuse of process in suing only after 15 years of mutual defamation between the two rival unions - The de­fendant claimed the action was for an improper motive (deferring future raids) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no abuse of process - The fact that the plaintiffs chose not to sue earlier did not constitute relinquishment of their right to sue - The plaintiffs chose to ignore the defendants' defamatory state­ments until they could no longer do so - The court stated that "each incident of defamation is a discrete and fresh incident, and the mere fact that a plaintiff did not sue the first, second or ninetieth time the defendant defamed him, does not in itself prevent him from suing on the hundredth" - See paragraphs 121 to 122.

Cases Noticed:

Willows v. Williams (1951), 2 W.W.R.(N.S.) 657 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

England v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1979), 97 D.L.R.(3d) 472 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lawson v. Thompson (1968), 66 W.W.R.(N.S.) 427 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1969), 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

DeMoor v. Harvey (1989), 24 C.C.E.L. 293 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

O'Neal v. Pulp, Paper & Woodworkers of Canada, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 92 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers (1980), 18 B.C.L.R. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Mitchell v. Nanaimo District Teachers' Association et al. (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 194; 78 W.A.C. 194; 94 B.C.L.R.(2d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Price v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 179, refd to. [para. 30].

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. United Food and Commercial Workers' Union (UFCW), Local 1518, [1993] B.C.J. No. 140 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Alberta v. Wenley Enterprises & Sales Ltd. et al. (1985), 66 A.R. 232 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 44].

Murray v. Saskatoon (City)(No. 2) (1951), 4 W.W.R.(N.S.) 234 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Stephenson v. Kerekanich et al.; Central Peace Dairies Ltd. v. Stephenson and Kerekanich (1976), 2 A.R. 198; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 354 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Beasse et al. (1992), 124 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

McKergow v. Comstock (1906), 11 O.L.R. 637 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Dingle, [1962] 2 All E.R. 737 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 62].

Jones v. Bennett (1968), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 76].

Doyle v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 1681 and Eaton (1991), 110 A.R. 222 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 131 A.R. 101; 25 W.A.C. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Muller v. Hatton, [1952] Q.S.R. 150 (Aus­tralian Full Court), refd to. [para. 83].

Hebert v. Jackson, [1950] O.R. 799 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

MacDonald v. Poirier (1991), 120 N.B.R.(2d) 18; 302 A.P.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 86].

Jones v. Bennett, [1969] S.C.R. 277, refd to. [para. 89].

Munro v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 100 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

Beaulieu v. Cochrane (1897), 29 O.R. 598 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Falk v. Smith, [1941] O.R. 17 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 108].

Cook v. Ward (1830), 130 E.R. 1338, refd to. [para. 112].

Bentham and Salmon v. Rothbart (1988), 26 C.P.C.(2d) 109 (Ont. Master), affd. (1989), 36 O.A.C. 13 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 120].

Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Inde­pendent Canadian Transit Union et al. (1995), 180 A.R. 241; 37 Alta. L.R.(3d) 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 143].

Hoste v. Victoria Times Publishing Co. (1889), 1 B.C.R. (Pt. 2) 365 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 143].

Wade & Wells Co. v. Laing (1957), 11 D.L.R.(2d) 276 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 146].

O'Malley v. O'Callaghan et al., [1992] 4 W.W.R. 81; 128 A.R. 28 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 150].

Sykes v. Fraser, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 246 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 297].

Derrickson et al. v. Tomat et al. (1992), 9 B.C.A.C. 119; 9 W.A.C. 119; 63 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 372].

Netupsky v. Craig, [1971] 1 O.R. 51 (C.A.), affd. [1973] S.C.R. 55, refd to. [para. 373].

Turner v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd., [1950] 1 All E.R. 449 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 373].

Leonhard v. Sun Publishing Co. (1956), 19 W.W.R.(N.S.) 415 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 377].

Parks v. Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied Workers (1981), 122 D.L.R.(3d) 366 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 380].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 11, refd to. [para. 380].

Mack v. North Hill News Ltd. (1964), 44 D.L.R.(2d) 147 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 393].

Lawson v. Burns, [1975] 1 W.W.R. 171 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 395].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Got (W.) & Associ­ates Electric Ltd. et al. (1994), 150 A.R. 93; 17 Alta. L.R.(3d) 23 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 403].

Wiley v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. (1988), 51 D.L.R.(4th) 439 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 408].

Brannigan v. Seafarers International Union of Canada (1963), 42 D.L.R.(2d) 249 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 408].

Mercereau v. Hock, [1930] 3 D.L.R. 159 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 412].

Statutes Noticed:

Defamation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-6, sect. 1 [para. 16]; sect. 2(2) [para. 392]; sect. 9 [para. 97]; sect. 13 [para. 16].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 254 [para. 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (1st Ed. 1987), pp. 154 [paras. 34, 35]; 465 [para. 101]; 466 [paras. 101, 102]; 470, 471 [para. 102]; 545 [para. 104]; 829 [para. 31]; 946, 947 [para. 72]; 948 [paras. 70, 73]; 949, 950, 951 [para. 73]; 952 [paras. 73, 74]; 953 [paras. 74, 75]; 954, 955 [para. 75].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), vol. 1, pp. 3-1, 3-2 [para. 32]; 4-44.3 [para. 38]; 5-3 [para. 35]; 5-27 [para. 29]; 5-56 [para. 134]; 5-58, 5-59 [para. 34]; 11-1, 11-3 [para. 111]; 11-7 [para. 112]; 15-55, 15-56 [para. 133]; 22-75 to 22-78 [para. 379]; 25-7, 25-8 [para. 349].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), pp. 580 [para. 93]; 588 [para. 57].

Gatley, Slander and Libel (3rd Ed.), pp. 295, 299 [para. 109].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (7th Ed. 1974), pp. 31, 32, paras. 57, 58 [para. 24].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), pp. 592, 593 [para. 387]; para. 1341 [para. 86].

Mewett, Alan W., Witnesses (1996), p. 2-19 [para. 53].

Odgers, Libel and Slander, p. 645 [para. 57].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (2nd Ed.), p. 4-9 [para. 390].

Counsel:

Catherine R. McCreary and Virginia L. Palsgrove, for the plaintiffs;

Virginia M. May, Q.C., for the witnesses Harvey and Rutley (on cross-examin­ation);

Leo McGrady and Jamie Baugh (McGrady, Askew & Fiorillo), for the defendants;

Kurt W. Stilwell, for the witnesses Harvey and Rutley.

This action was heard before Lutz, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the fol­lowing judgment on February 28, 1997.