Giesbrecht v. Prpick
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Judge | Antonio; Ho; Feth |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2025 |
| Citation | 2025 ABCA 222 |
| Docket Number | 2401-0042AC |
| Date | 23 June 2025 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
7 practice notes
-
Kostic v. Thom
...by security that what is required to be produced will be held confidential: Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2024 ABKB 51 at para 45, affirmed 2025 ABCA 222. [18] As to the third potential restriction, see MBH at paras [83] In most cases, the implied undertaking addresses any concerns about confidentia......
-
MacNeil v. Pankow
...The reporting of crime to police is a recognized occasion of qualified privilege: Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2024 ABKB 51 at para 152, aff’d 2025 ABCA 222 [Giesbrecht]; Caron v A, 2015 BCCA 47 at paras 37, 54; Cusson v Quan, 2007 ONCA 771 at para 39, rev’d on other grounds 2009 SCC 62. Where an o......
-
Piikani Nation v. North Peigan
...meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff: Defamation Act, RSA 2000 c D-7; Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2025 ABCA 222 at para 10, citing Grant v Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61 at para [49] Specificity in pleadings is particularly important in defamation actions:......
-
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v. Makis
...to be considered in the Court’s determination of whether final injunctive relief ought to be granted. See also: Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2025 ABCA 222 at para 15; Google at para [112] The CPSA, in the discharge of its public interest mandate, has the right to insist that......
Get Started for Free
7 cases
-
Kostic v. Thom
...by security that what is required to be produced will be held confidential: Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2024 ABKB 51 at para 45, affirmed 2025 ABCA 222. [18] As to the third potential restriction, see MBH at paras [83] In most cases, the implied undertaking addresses any concerns about confidentia......
-
MacNeil v. Pankow
...The reporting of crime to police is a recognized occasion of qualified privilege: Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2024 ABKB 51 at para 152, aff’d 2025 ABCA 222 [Giesbrecht]; Caron v A, 2015 BCCA 47 at paras 37, 54; Cusson v Quan, 2007 ONCA 771 at para 39, rev’d on other grounds 2009 SCC 62. Where an o......
-
Piikani Nation v. North Peigan
...meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff: Defamation Act, RSA 2000 c D-7; Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2025 ABCA 222 at para 10, citing Grant v Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61 at para [49] Specificity in pleadings is particularly important in defamation actions:......
-
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta v. Makis
...to be considered in the Court’s determination of whether final injunctive relief ought to be granted. See also: Giesbrecht v Prpick, 2025 ABCA 222 at para 15; Google at para [112] The CPSA, in the discharge of its public interest mandate, has the right to insist that......
Get Started for Free
