Halluk v. Brown, (1982) 41 A.R. 350 (QB)

• Judge: MacDonald, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 16, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 41 A.R. 350 (QB)

Halluk v. Brown (1982), 41 A.R. 350 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Halluk v. Brown

(8001 06928)

Indexed As: Halluk v. Brown

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

MacDonald, J.

December 16, 1982.

Summary:

The defendant union president stated on a Calgary radio broadcast that the plaintiff streets construction supervisor for Calgary treated people like dogs and used abusive language to them. The plaintiff brought an action for damages for defamation.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and awarded $5,000.00 general damages.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts affecting the person - Libel and slander - A union president said on a radio program that a city streets construction supervisor treated his employees like dogs and used abusive language to them - The supervisor's relations with his employees were affected - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the supervisor $5,000.00 general damages for defamation.

Damages - Topic 2524

Torts affecting the person - Libel and slander - Considerations in assessing damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench generally discussed the considerations in assessing damages for defamation - See paragraphs 35 to 36 - The court took into account that the defendant did not apologize for his defamatory statement (see paragraph 34) and that the defendant made the statement ad lib (see paragraph 39).

Libel and Slander - Topic 748

The statement - Defamatory statement - What constitutes - Slander - Respecting person's profession, trade or office - A union president said that a city streets construction supervisor treated his employees like dogs and used abusive language to them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the statement was defamatory - See paragraphs 17 to 23.

Libel and Slander - Topic 903

The statement - Innuendo - What constitutes - The union president said that a city streets construction supervisor treated his employees like dogs and used abusive language to them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the words were in their natural and ordinary meaning defamatory, but also carried the innuendo of oppressive conduct - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Libel and Slander - Topic 905

The statement - Innuendo - As separate cause of action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that defamation by innuendo is a separate cause of action distinct from an action for defamation based on the natural and ordinary meaning of words - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1400

Identification of person defamed - General - A union president stated that a city "assistant superintendent put in from outside" was abusive to his employees - The plaintiff was the only assistant superintendent appointed from outside the city work force - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was the person referred to in the statement and generally discussed the test of determining whether allegedly defamatory words refer to a plaintiff - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1944

Publication - What constitutes - Radio or television broadcast - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the broadcast of a defamatory statement on a radio program constituted publication - See paragraphs 16, 32.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3109

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of - Truth - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the defence of fair comment does not protect misstatements of fact - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Sykes v. Fraser, [1974] S.C.R. 526, appld. [para. 13].

Syme v. Canaven, [1918] V.L.R. 540; 25 C.L.R. 234, appld. [para. 14].

Thomas v. C.B.C., [1981] 4 W.W.R. 289; 27 A.R. 547, appld. [para. 21].

England v. C.B.C., [1979] 3 W.W.R. 193; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 472, appld. [para. 21].

Grubb v. Bristol United Press, [1963] 1 Q.B. 309, appld. [para. 22].

Manitoba Free Press Company v. Martin, 21 S.C.R. 518, consd. [para. 29].

Wills v. Carmen, 17 O.R. 223, consd. [para. 29].

Douglas v. Tucker, [1951] 1 S.C.R. 275; [1952] 1 D.L.R. 657, appld. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Defamation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-6, sect. 1(b), sect. 2(3) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Duncan and Hoolahan, Guide to Defamation Practice (2nd Ed. 1958), p. 50 [para. 35].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (6th Ed.), pp. 2 [para. 20]; 6 [para. 39]; 68 [para. 17]; 166 [para. 35]; 319 [para. 29]; 322 [para. 30]; 599 [para. 36].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (7th Ed.), pp. 31-32 [para. 21].

Counsel:

J.D. Vallis, for the plaintiff;

D.I.D. McLean, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before MacDONALD, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on December 16, 1982: