Haight-Smith v. Neden,
Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
Judge | Esson, Ryan and Levine, JJ.A. |
Neutral Citation | 2002 BCCA 132 |
Citation | 2002 BCCA 132,(2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236 (CA),211 DLR (4th) 370,98 BCLR (3d) 260,164 BCAC 236,[2002] BCJ No 375 (QL),164 B.C.A.C. 236,211 D.L.R. (4th) 370,(2002), 164 BCAC 236 (CA),[2002] B.C.J. No 375 (QL) |
Date | 28 January 2002 |
Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
Haight-Smith v. Neden (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236 (CA);
268 W.A.C. 236
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.036
Barbara Haight-Smith (plaintiff/appellant) v. Janice Neden, Wendy Lichlyter, Evelyn Spicer, Tony Dufficy, Ross Dickson, Tarry Grieve, Allan Critchley, Geoff Gibbard, Connie Burris, Alison McLean, Helen Franklin, Jake Bornstein, Ed Babcock, Murray Bymoen, Art Blackwell, Charlien McCauley, Chris Moore, June Neufeld, Barb Williams, Carolyn Riley aka Carolyn Hawryluk, School District No. 73 (Kamloops/Thompson) (defendants/respondents)
(CA027665; 2002 BCCA 132)
Indexed As: Haight-Smith v. Neden et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Esson, Ryan and Levine, JJ.A.
February 27, 2002.
Summary:
The plaintiff, a retired teacher, sued the defendants, alleging defamation, negligence, malice and arbitrary treatment prior to her retirement. The defendants were the school principal, teachers, the superintendent and assistant superintendent, a secretary at the school, a support worker at the school, a custodian at the school and the school district. The defendants applied to dismiss the action, arguing that: the allegations in the statement of claim were beyond the court's jurisdiction and properly matters to be resolved under the collective agreement; the statements alleged to be defamatory were protected by absolute privilege and/or qualified privilege.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2000] B.C.T.C. 610, dismissed the action. The plaintiff was subject to the collective agreement. The circumstances arose directly from her employment as a teacher and were within the purview of the agreement. Her dispute with the defendants arose from the employment relationship. Therefore, the court was without jurisdiction over the defendants who were teachers, former teachers, principals or vice-principals, the superintendent and assistant superintendent and were subject to the collective agreement. As for the school support worker, the school secretary, and the school custodian, any school district employees who were not members of the collective agreement, any statements made by them were protected by qualified privilege. They had a social or moral duty to respond to the questions during the investigation concerning the plaintiff. There was no malice. The plaintiff appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Labour Law - Topic 7205
Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - The British Columbia Court of Appeal summarized the principles respecting the jurisdiction of the courts in labour matters (i.e., whether a dispute arose from, and had to be dealt with, under a collective agreement) - See paragraphs 28 to 30.
Labour Law - Topic 7205
Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - A retired teacher sued the school district, her former principal, vice-principal, other teachers and staff members at her former school, the superintendent and assistant superintendent - She claimed defamation, harassment, and discrimination - All impugned statements related to the teacher's performance or conduct within the employment relationship and were related to her character, history and capacity as an employee - All were made by someone whose job it was to communicate workplace problems, to persons who would be expected to be informed of such problems - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims, which were covered under the collective agreement - See paragraphs 28 to 45.
Libel and Slander - Topic 2983
Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - A retired teacher sued, inter alia, her former school district, principal, vice-principal, fellow teachers, for defamation, harassment and discrimination - Three defendants were not covered by the plaintiff teacher's collective agreement: the school secretary, support worker and custodian - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that any statements made by these defendants were protected by qualified privilege, as they had a duty to respond to the assistant superintendent's questions about the plaintiff - The occasion of the investigation was one of qualified privilege - Further, it was reasonable to find that there was no malice - See paragraphs 44 to 59.
Libel and Slander - Topic 2987
Defences - Qualified privilege - Employment relationship - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2983 ].
Libel and Slander - Topic 2988
Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of malice - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2983 ].
Libel and Slander - Topic 2995
Defences - Qualified privilege - Public duty - General - [See Libel and Slander -Topic 2983 ].
Libel and Slander - Topic 4063
Malice - As a bar to defence of fair comment or qualified privilege - Requirement of express or actual malice - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2983 ].
Cases Noticed:
Haight-Smith v. Kamloops School District No. 34 (1988), 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-027; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1; 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, refd to. [para. 28].
Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 28].
St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 30].
Fording Coal Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7884 et al. (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 42; 192 W.A.C. 42; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 468 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
Johnston v. Anderson et al. (1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 157; 198 W.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
Blanco-Arriba v. British Columbia, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1557 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].
Ram v. Prasad (1996), 27 B.C.L.R.(3d) 300 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].
Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 479 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 247 N.R. 197; 127 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].
Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 373 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed (2000), 262 N.R. 399; 190 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 594 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 32].
Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69 (C.A.), consd. [para. 32].
Giorno v. Pappas (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), consd. [para. 34].
Bhaduria v. Board of Education of Toronto et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 356; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 382 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed (1999), 252 N.R. 193; 133 O.A.C. 197 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 34].
Sloan v. Board of Education of York Region, [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 175 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed (2001), 268 N.R. 399; 149 O.A.C. 392 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 34].
Hall v. Puchniak (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 93; 109 W.A.C. 93; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 707 (C.A.), dist. [para. 34].
Mendoza v. St. Michael's Centre Hospital Society (1998), 53 B.C.L.R.(3d) 177 (S.C.), consd. [para. 37].
Kovlaske v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 1-217, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1135 (S.C.), consd. [para. 37].
Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309, refd to. [para. 52].
McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 311; 26 N.R. 242, refd to. [para. 52].
Korach v. Moore (1991), 42 O.A.C. 248; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Linden, Allen, M., Canadian Tort Law (6th Ed. 1997), pp. 707 to 708 [para. 53], 708 [para. 54].
Counsel:
Barbara Haight-Smith, in person;
J.A. Dowler, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 28, 2002, before Esson, Ryan and Levine, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Levine, J.A., on February 27, 2002.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2007 NSCA 90
...85]. Giorno v. Pappas et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85]. Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 370 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2002), 303 N.R. 394; 185 B.C.A.C. 160; 303 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), re......
-
Table of cases
...AG Zurich, [1981] 1 WL.R. 1265 242 Table of Cases 965 Hahn v. Gettel (1915), 9 WWR. 686 (Sask. T.D.) 745, 746 HaightSmith v. Neden (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370, 2002 BCCA132 364,381, 669 Hains Marketing Associates Ltd. v. Canadian Olympic Association, [2000] OJ. No. 973 (S.CJ.) 491 Hajjar v......
-
The Defence of Qualified Privilege
...that communication. Pressler v. Lethbridge (2000), 86 B.C.L.R. (3d) 257, per Southin J.A. at 295 (C.A.). Haight-Smith v. Neden (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370, per Levine J.A. for the court at 383 (B.C.C.A.), citing Lord Atkinson in Adam v. Ward , [1917] A.C. 309 at 334 (H.L.) and Mcloughlin v......
-
Table of Cases
...2008 QCCS 3504 ................................................................................... 416 Haight-Smith v. Neden (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370 (B.C.C.A.) ............................................. .288 Halls v. Mitchell, [1928] S.C.R. 125 ............................................
-
Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2007 NSCA 90
...85]. Giorno v. Pappas et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85]. Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 370 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2002), 303 N.R. 394; 185 B.C.A.C. 160; 303 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), re......
-
Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., (2007) 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144 (CA)
...(2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2000 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 49]. Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2002), 303 N.R. 394; 185 B.C.A.C. 160; 303 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd......
-
Bennett v. British Columbia, (2007) 234 B.C.A.C. 180 (CA)
...Commission of Etobicoke (City), [2001] O.T.C. 149; 53 O.R.(3d) 285 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26]. Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 98 B.C.L.R.(3d) 260; 2002 BCCA 132, refd to. [para. Elkview Coal Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 9346 et ......
-
Jensen v. Alberta et al., 2002 ABQB 788
...31]. Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92; 41 O.R.(3d) 729 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35]. Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38]. Hall v. Yukon, [1997] Y.J. No. 109 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44]. Kavanagh v. Newfoundland (Mini......
-
The Defence of Qualified Privilege
...that communication. Pressler v. Lethbridge (2000), 86 B.C.L.R. (3d) 257, per Southin J.A. at 295 (C.A.). Haight-Smith v. Neden (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370, per Levine J.A. for the court at 383 (B.C.C.A.), citing Lord Atkinson in Adam v. Ward , [1917] A.C. 309 at 334 (H.L.) and Mcloughlin v......
-
Table of Cases
...2008 QCCS 3504 ................................................................................... 416 Haight-Smith v. Neden (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370 (B.C.C.A.) ............................................. .288 Halls v. Mitchell, [1928] S.C.R. 125 ............................................
-
Table of cases
...AG Zurich, [1981] 1 WL.R. 1265 242 Table of Cases 965 Hahn v. Gettel (1915), 9 WWR. 686 (Sask. T.D.) 745, 746 HaightSmith v. Neden (2002), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370, 2002 BCCA132 364,381, 669 Hains Marketing Associates Ltd. v. Canadian Olympic Association, [2000] OJ. No. 973 (S.CJ.) 491 Hajjar v......
-
Table of Cases
...401, [2001] BCLRBD No 273, [2001] LVI 3212-6 .................................................................239 Haight-Smith v Neden , 2002 BCCA 132 .....................................................................45 Hargrove v Sleepy’s LLC , 106 A 3d 449 (NJ Sup Ct 2015) ..................