McCrea v. Canada Newspapers Co. et al., (1993) 122 N.S.R.(2d) 411 (SC)

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: MacAdam, J.
• Citation: (1993), 122 N.S.R.(2d) 411 (SC)
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Date: 29 January 1993

McCrea v. Can. Newspapers Co. (1993), 122 N.S.R.(2d) 411 (SC);

    338 A.P.R. 411

MLB headnote and full text

Armour M. McCrea (plaintiff) v. Canada Newspapers Company Limited, carrying on business under the firm, name and style The Globe and Mail and Stevie Cameron (defendants)

(1991 S.H. No. 76184)

Indexed As: McCrea v. Canada Newspapers Co. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

MacAdam, J.

January 29, 1993.

Summary:

The Globe and Mail published a number of articles regarding political patronage in Nova Scotia. McCrea commenced an action for defamation. As part of the discovery phase, McCrea applied for an order directing the author of the pieces to answer certain ques­tions and to produce copies of all documents relevant in the proceeding.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the application.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4141

Malice - Evidence - General - The Globe and Mail ran a series of six articles on political patronage written by Cameron - McCrea sued for defamation because of statements in the last article concerning his relationship with the Premier - At dis­covery, McCrea wanted Cameron to answer questions concerning what she intended to suggest or imply by publishing the articles as well as the meaning she intended to convey by her use of certain words - Cameron claimed that a writer's intended meaning was an irrelevant con­sideration - McCrea submitted that mean­ing was important because, inter alia, of Cameron's denial that there was any de­famation and because of its importance to the issue of malice in a "fair comment" defence - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that Cameron had to answer the questions - See para­graphs 43 to 59.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6181

Practice - Discovery - General - The Globe and Mail ran a series of six articles on political patronage written by Cameron - The articles arose out of allegations made by Zareski before the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly and in interviews with Cameron - McCrea sued for defamation as a result of statements in the last article concerning his relationship with the Premier - At discovery, McCrea wanted Cameron to provide copies of all relevant documents used in producing the articles - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered Cameron and the Globe and Mail to produce all documents in their possession relevant to the series of articles - See paragraphs 38 to 42.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6190

Practice - Discovery - Range of questions to a defendant - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4141 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 6190

Practice - Discovery - Range of questions to a defendant - The Globe and Mail ran a series of six articles on political patron­age written by Cameron - McCrea sued for defamation as a result of statements in the last article concerning his relationship with the Premier - At discovery, McCrea wanted Cameron to answer ques­tions concerning the earlier articles - McCrea submitted that the earlier ones were rel­evant even though they were pub­lished some three weeks earlier because they all were based on information pro­vided by the same source, they focused on patronage and they formed part of the context under which the offending material was used - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that Cameron had to answer questions on the entire series of articles - See paragraphs 1 to 37.

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents relating to matters in issue - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 6181 ].

Cases Noticed:

Coughlan et al. v. Westminer Canada Holdings Ltd. et al. (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 214; 233 A.P.R. 214 (C.A.), consd. [para. 35].

Upham v. You (1986), 73 N.S.R.(2d) 73; 176 A.P.R. 73 (C.A.), consd., [para. 37].

Webber et al. v. Canadian Surety Co. (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 410; 294 A.P.R. 410 (S.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 39].

McCrea et al. v. Historic Properties Ltd. et al. (1988), 89 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 227 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), consd. [para. 41].

Wismer v. MacLean Hunter Publishing Co. Ltd., [1954] 1 D.L.R. 501 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 44].

Capital; and Counties Bank Ltd. v. George Henty and Sons (1882), 7 App. Cas. 741 (H.L.), consd. [para. 45].

Heaton v. Goldney, [1910] 1 K.B. 754, consd. [para. 46].

Clements v. Oliver (1909), 13 O.W.N. 530 (Master), refd to. [para. 47].

Morley v. Patrick (1910), 21 O.L.R. 240 (C.A.), consd. [para. 47].

Dennison et al. v. Sanderson et al., [1944] O.W.N. 611 (Master), refd to. [para. 48].

Popovitch v. Lobay et al., [1937] 2 W.W.R. 64 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

McConachy v. Times Publishers Ltd. (1964), 49 D.L.R.(2d) 349 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

Kolewaski and Klassen v. Island Properties Ltd., Horseshoe Land Developments Ltd., Rosco Holdings Ltd., Pearson, Peters and Quiring (1983), 56 N.S.R.(2d) 475; 117 A.P.R. 475 (S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Munro v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. (1982), 21 C.C.L.T. 261 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1982), 21 C.C.L.T. 105 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 18.09(3), rule 18.11, rule 20.06 [para. 1].

Defamation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 122, sect. 13(1)(a) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (1987), pp. 140 to 141 [paras. 31, 33].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), para. 102 [para. 34].

Parker and Potts, Canadian Libel Practice, p. 110 [para. 55].

Counsel:

George W. MacDonald, Q.C., and G.R. William Lahey, for the plaintiff;

Alexander S. Beveridge, for the defen­-dants.

This matter was heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, by MacAdam, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered judgment orally on January 29, 1993, and filed the following written reasons on June 21, 1993.