Haight-Smith v. Neden,

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
JudgeEsson, Ryan and Levine, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2002 BCCA 132
Citation2002 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)
Date28 January 2002
CourtCourt 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
56 practice notes
  • Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2007 NSCA 90
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • June 7, 2007
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Libel and Slander Actions
    • June 17, 2004
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Law and Practice of Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Part V. The Merits Hurdle
    • June 13, 2022
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Century? Part VIII
    • June 15, 2011
    ...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 ............................................
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2007 NSCA 90
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • June 7, 2007
    ...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)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • April 5, 2007
    ...(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)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • January 2, 2007
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 10, 2002
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • The Defence of Qualified Privilege
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Law and Practice of Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Part V. The Merits Hurdle
    • June 13, 2022
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Century? Part VIII
    • June 15, 2011
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Libel and Slander Actions
    • June 17, 2004
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books One Law for All? Weber v Ontario Hydro and Canadian Labour Law
    • June 20, 2017
    ...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) ..................
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT