Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Edmonton Sun et al., (1986) 75 A.R. 253 (QB)

• Judge: McFadyen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 1986
• Citations: (1986), 75 A.R. 253 (QB)

AUPE v. Edmonton Sun (1986), 75 A.R. 253 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Heuft, Zietarski, Highet, Stewart, Roy, Trusty, Lutness, Koenen, Rusk, Westman, Cumby, Burynuik, Mark, Warren, McLellan, Boivin, Kosack, Roberts, Kratko, Lowe, Korver, Hatfield, Crawshaw, Thompson and Critchley v. the Edmonton Sun, a partnership of Edmonton Sun Publishing Ltd. and the Toronto Sun Publishing Corporation, Edmonton Sun Publishing Ltd., Toronto Sun Publishing Corporation, Denhoff, Mayer and Bagshaw

(No. 8003-26736)

Indexed As: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Edmonton Sun et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

McFadyen, J.

December 15, 1986.

Summary:

Photographers and reporters covered a hostage-taking incident at a prison. Photographers photographing the grounds were advised by guards not to do so and had their film forcibly confiscated. Three newspaper articles described the incident; one by Mayer and two by Denhoff. The Mayer article and the second Denhoff article referred only to the unnamed guards involved in the film confiscation incident. The first Denhoff article referred to the guards generally as a "gang of bumbling yoyos", "goons", "gumshoes", "a joke" and lacking "the brains to be Nazis". The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and 25 guards brought a defamation action for damages against the newspaper, its owners, publishers and the authors of the articles.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action in part. The court held that the Mayer article and the second Denhoff article were not defamatory, but that the first Denhoff article was defamatory. The court assessed damages accordingly.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts affecting the person - Libel and slander - Twenty-five prison guards were defamed by a newspaper article that described them as stupid, incompetent, undisciplined, violent and lacking the brains to be Nazis - All 25 guards were affected by derogatory comments from others, embarrassment, some social ostracization, etc. - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench divided the guards into three groups for the purpose of awarding damages - The guards minimally affected received $1,500.00 each; those seriously affected received $2,500.00 each and those extraordinarily affected received $3,500.00 each - See paragraphs 104 to 107.

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - Defamatory statements - What constitute - Examples of defamatory words - A newspaper article referred to a class of prison guards generally as a "gang of bumbling yoyos", "goons", "gumshoes", lacking the "brains to be Nazis", "a joke", etc. - The words conveyed a meaning to a reasonable reader that the guards were stupid, incompetent, undisciplined and brutal - The article would reasonably lead persons acquainted with any of the 25 guards who were plaintiffs in the defamation action to believe the defamatory words applied to them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the article defamed the guards - See paragraphs 43 to 54.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1405

Identification of person defamed - Group or class defamation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the plaintiffs in a defamation action must prove that they are the persons whom the defamatory words referred to - The court stated that where the defamatory words referred to a group or class of unnamed individuals, each individual plaintiff must prove the words would reasonably lead persons acquainted with him to believe that he was a member of the defamed group - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1405

Identification of person defamed - Group or class defamation - Twenty-five prison guards brought a defamation action - Two of the alleged defamatory articles referred specifically to the actions of unnamed guards involved in an incident in which none of the 25 guards were involved - These articles contained no statement referring to guards generally and nothing in the articles would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the 25 guards to believe the defamatory words applied to them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the guards' action based on the two articles - See paragraphs 36 to 42.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1410

Identification of person defamed - Evidence and proof - An allegedly defamatory newspaper article referred only to prison guards - No mention was made of the guards' union - The union and the guards commenced a defamation action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the union's action - The court held that the union was not defamed where the defamatory words could not reasonably lead persons acquainted with the union to believe that the defamatory words applied to the union - See paragraph 35.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of - Honest expression of opinion - A newspaper article conveyed the meaning that a group of prison guards were stupid, incompetent, brutal, etc. - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that even if the article was comment, rather than statement of fact, the defence of fair comment did not apply, where the author of the article asserted no honestly-held opinion or belief in the meaning conveyed to a reasonable reader - The court stated that the article went beyond criticism and constituted personal abuse and invectiveness, which was not protected by the defence of fair comment - See paragraphs 55 to 77.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Considerations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the author of defamatory words cannot rely on a similar defamation by others to mitigate his damages - See paragraph 92.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6065

Practice - Notice of intention to bring action - Sufficiency of contents of notice - Section 13 of the Defamation Act required a plaintiff to give notice of an intending action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that substantial compliance would meet the requirements of s. 13 - Twenty-five prison guards commenced a defamation action, but only one of them was named in the notice - However, the notice did inform the alleged defamor that the one named guard was representative of the other guards - The defamatory material was clearly identified - The court held that the fact that the defamor was informed of the general class of plaintiffs who intended to sue constituted substantial compliance with s. 13 - See paragraphs 81 to 91.

Cases Noticed:

Syme v. Canavan (1918), 25 C.L.R., refd to. [para. 32].

Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., [1944] A.C. 116, refd to. [para. 33].

Jones v. Skelton, [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1362, refd to. [para. 55].

Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. (1978), 24 N.R. 271; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Paletta & Palmont Packers Ltd. v. Lethbridge Herald Co. Ltd. (1977), 2 A.R. 529; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 166, agreed with [para. 85].

Grossman v. CFTO-TV Ltd. et al. (1982), 139 D.L.R.(3d) 618 (Ont. C.A.), appld. [para. 87].

Sentinel-Review Company Ltd. v. Robinson et al., [1928] S.C.R. 258, refd to. [para. 89].

Snider v. Calgary Herald et al. (1986), 65 A.R. 99, refd to. [para. 94].

Associated Newspapers v. Dingle, [1964] A.C. 410, refd to. [para. 98].

Statutes Noticed:

Defamation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-6, sect. 9(1) [para. 79]; sect. 13 [para. 81]; sect. 15(2) [para. 93].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Linden, Canadian Tort Law (3rd Ed.), pp. 676 [para. 51]; 694 [para. 71]; 695 [para. 72].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed.), pp. 586 [para. 99]; 699 [para. 55]; 701 [para. 56]; 704 [para. 57]; 705 [para. 58]; 706 [para. 59].

Duncan and Neill on Defamation, para. 12.02 [para. 60].

Counsel:

A.M. Zariski and C. Remmer (student-at-law), for the plaintiffs;

K.G. Nielsen and M.F. Wesolowski, for the defendants.

This action was heard before McFadyen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on December 15, 1986.