Fulton v. Globe and Mail et al., (1997) 207 A.R. 374 (QB)

• Judge: Belzil, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 08, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 207 A.R. 374 (QB)

Fulton v. Globe & Mail (1997), 207 A.R. 374 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] A.R. TBEd. SE.038

Jane Fulton (plaintiff) v. The Globe and Mail, Thomson Canada Limited, William Thorsell, Roger P. Parkinson, Jane Coutts and John Doe

1-25 (defendants)

(Action No. 9603-08267)

Indexed As: Fulton v. Globe and Mail et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Belzil, J.

September 8, 1997.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant newspaper et al. re­specting articles alleging that she falsified her curriculum vitae when she was hired. The plaintiff's statement of claim also claimed negligence, alleging that the defen­dants were liable for shoddy and incomplete research. The defendants applied to strike the portion of the statement of claim alleging negligence, claiming that there could be no concurrent liability in defamation and tort where the claim was for loss of reputation.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 194 A.R. 254, struck the negligence portion of the state­ment of claim. The plaintiff appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench affirmed that there could be no concurrent liability in defamation and negligence for damage to reputation. However, the court allowed the appeal in part since only one of the struck paragraphs related to negligence.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6023

Practice (incl. parties) - Actions - When available - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that negligent research, absent publication, gave rise to no legal consequences in that no damages could flow from unpublished negligent research - Accordingly, negligent research without more was not actionable - See paragraphs 18 to 23.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6025

Practice (incl. parties) - Actions - Con­current liability in defamation and negli­gence - The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant newspaper et al. and also claimed damages in negli­gence, alleging that the defendants con­ducted shoddy and incomplete research - The defendants successfully applied to strike the negligence portion of the state­ment of claim on the ground that there could be no concurrent liability in defama­tion and tort where the claim was for loss of reputation - On appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench affirmed that there could be no concurrent liability in defama­tion and negligence for damage to reputa­tion.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6025

Practice (incl. parties) - Actions - Con­current liability in defamation and negli­gence - In holding that there could be no concurrent liability in defamation and negligence for damage to reputation, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that there were sound policy reasons for up­holding the integrity of the law of de­famation - While the law of defamation reflects a balance of the interests of main­taining free speech while protecting the rights of individuals, the law of negligence is rather concerned with breaches of duties of care - Furthermore, the court should resist expanding loss of reputation claims in the context of publication beyond the law of defamation in that to permit claims in negligence would allow plaintiffs to circumvent defences available in defama­tion claims - See para­graphs 28 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Foaminal Laboratories Ltd. v. British Artid Plastics Ltd., [1941] 2 All E.R. 393, refd to. [para. 8].

B.P.I. Resources Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and Anderson (1989), 95 A.R. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Elliott et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (1993), 16 O.R.(3d) 677 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

Elliott et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 115; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 534 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

John A. Weir, Q.C., (Weir Bowen), for the plaintiff;

Allan H. Lefever (Reynolds Mirth Rich­ards & Farmer), for the defendants.

This appeal was heard before Belzil, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 8, 1997.