Franchuk v. Schick, (2014) 592 A.R. 106 (QB)

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 592 A.R. 106 (QB);2014 ABQB 249

Franchuk v. Schick (2014), 592 A.R. 106 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. JL.006

Mike Franchuk (plaintiff) v. Mary Schick (defendant)

(0603 07660; 2014 ABQB 249)

Indexed As: Franchuk v. Schick

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

June 25, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff was one of 11 directors of the Lakeland Rural Electric Association (REA). The defendant ran the REA's two person office. In 2004, the defendant told the REA president that the plaintiff sexually harassed her with inappropriate comments. At the president's request, the defendant sent a formal written complaint to the board of directors. The board, having no formal sexual harassment policy, determined that sexual harassment was not established in this "he said, she said" scenario. The board also voted down the plaintiff's motion that the defendant be fired or demoted for her failure to properly do her job. The plaintiff sued for damages for defamation. The defendant pleaded truth and qualified privilege.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's action. It could not be determined whether the statements were true or not. However, qualified privilege attached to the occasion of an employee, at her superior's request, forwarding a formal complaint of sexual harassment to the board for investigation. Although it could not be determined whether the allegations were true, the court was satisfied that the defendant honestly believed them to be true and that the allegations were made without malice (not in retaliation for the plaintiff's attempt to get her fired). The court provisionally assessed $10,000 general damages.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2864

Defences - Justification or truth - Evidence and proof - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of malice - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2987

Defences - Qualified privilege - Employment relationship - The plaintiff was one of 11 directors of the Lakeland Rural Electric Association (REA) - The defendant ran the REA's two person office - In 2004, the defendant told the REA president that the plaintiff sexually harassed her with inappropriate comments - At the president's request, the defendant sent a formal written complaint to the board of directors - The board, having no formal sexual harassment policy, determined that sexual harassment was not established in this "he said, she said" scenario - The board also voted down the plaintiff's motion that the defendant be fired or demoted for her failure to properly do her job - The plaintiff sued for damages for defamation - The defendant pleaded truth and qualified privilege - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's action - It could not be determined whether the statements were true or not - However, qualified privilege attached to the occasion of an employee, at her superior's request, forwarding a formal complaint of sexual harassment to the board for investigation - Although it could not be determined whether the allegations were true, the court was satisfied that the defendant honestly believed them to be true and that the allegations were made without malice (not in retaliation for the plaintiff's attempt to get her fired) - The court provisionally assessed $10,000 general damages.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4425

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - Nominal or contemptuous damages - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2987 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640; 397 N.R. 1; 258 O.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 17].

Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214; 412 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

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. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gatley, Clement, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), pp. 592, 593 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Nestor Makuch (Wheatley Sadownik), for the plaintiff;

Byron W. Nelson (McGuigan Nelson LLP), for the defendant.

This action was heard on April 10-11, 2014, before Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 25, 2014.