Neuschaefer v. Leskiw et al., (2008) 435 A.R. 350 (QB)

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 435 A.R. 350 (QB);2008 ABQB 18

Neuschaefer v. Leskiw (2008), 435 A.R. 350 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JA.161

Peter Neuschaefer (plaintiff) v. Marion Leskiw, Marjorie Shewchuk and Civic Service Union 52 (defendants)

(0503-19312; 2008 ABQB 18)

Indexed As: Neuschaefer v. Leskiw et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moreau, J.

January 8, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiff was an executive board member with the Civic Service Union 52 (CSU 52). Shewchuk was a business agent with the Telecommunication Workers Union (TWU). CSU 52 supported TWU members in a bitter labour dispute with Telus. The plaintiff's wife was a Telus employee and TWU member who crossed the picket line. A conversation between the plaintiff and Shewchuk led Shewchuk to reasonably believe that the plaintiff supported Telus. Shewchuk complained to the president of CSU 52, as did a CSU 52 shop steward, who was upset with the plaintiff's alleged support of Telus and his wife's crossing of the picket line. The president investigated and asked Shewchuk to document the content of her discussion with the plaintiff in an e-mail, telling her to "make it as bad as you can". At the next CSU 52 executive board meeting, the president informed the plaintiff of the complaints of his alleged support of Telus. The plaintiff denied the claim. It was made clear to the plaintiff that his comments would be raised at the next CSU 52 general membership meeting, at which he would have an opportunity to respond. The plaintiff, who was on vacation, chose not to attend the meeting or send someone on his behalf. Shewchuk's e-mail was read out, accusing the plaintiff of supporting Telus and criticizing his wife for crossing the picket line. The president commented that it would be a shame "if what I'm seeing here is correct". Shewchuk's letter was subsequently circulated to the union membership. At a subsequent shop steward's meeting, the plaintiff was asked to address the e-mail and replied that it was not correct. The plaintiff brought a defamation action for damages against the president, CSU 52 and Shewchuk (defendants). The defendants pleaded qualified privilege.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action. The contents of the e-mail were defamatory, but the defendants were protected by qualified privilege. The court provisionally assessed $12,000 general damages.

Libel and Slander - Topic 644

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Disparagement of reputation - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 2988 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of malice - The plaintiff was an executive board member with the Civic Service Union 52 (CSU 52) - Shewchuk was a business agent with the Telecommunication Workers Union (TWU) - CSU 52 supported TWU members in a bitter labour dispute with Telus - The plaintiff's wife was a Telus employee and TWU member who crossed the picket line - A conversation between the plaintiff and Shewchuk led Shewchuk to reasonably believe that the plaintiff supported Telus - Shewchuk complained to the president of CSU 52, as did a CSU 52 shop steward, who was upset with the plaintiff's alleged support of Telus and his wife's crossing of the picket line - The president investigated and asked Shewchuk to document her discussion with the plaintiff in an e-mail, telling her to "make it as bad as you can" - At the next CSU 52 executive board meeting, the president informed the plaintiff of the complaints of his alleged support of Telus - The plaintiff denied the claim - It was made clear to the plaintiff that his comments would be raised at the next CSU 52 general membership meeting, at which he would have an opportunity to respond - The plaintiff, who was on vacation, chose not to attend the meeting - Shewchuk's e-mail was read out, accusing the plaintiff of supporting Telus and criticizing his wife for crossing the picket line - The president commented that it would be a shame "if what I'm seeing here is correct" - Shewchuk's letter was subsequently circulated to the union membership - At a subsequent shop steward's meeting, the plaintiff was asked to address the e-mail and replied that it was not correct - The plaintiff brought a defamation action for damages against the president, CSU 52 and Shewchuk (defendants) - The defendants pleaded qualified privilege - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - The contents of the e-mail were defamatory, as the e-mail tended to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally - However, the defendants were protected by qualified privilege - A union's communications to its members concerning union affairs was protected by qualified privilege - Union members had an interest in receiving the information in the e-mail - The presumption of bona fides prevailed, as the plaintiff failed to establish that the dominant motive for publishing the e-mail was actual or express malice or that the e-mail went beyond the necessary and reasonable limits of the defendants' interests - Shewchuk honestly believed in the truth of the contents of the e-mail and the honest belief of the president was not shown to have been rooted in recklessness as to the truth or falsity of the e-mail - See paragraphs 44 to 86.

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 2988 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 1].

Lougheed v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1978] 4 W.W.R. 358; 11 A.R. 55 (Q.B.), affd. [1979] 3 W.W.R. 334; 15 A.R. 201; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Universal Weld Overlays Inc. et al. v. Capitan Overlay Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 305 A.R. 305; 2001 ABQB 1009, refd to. [para. 46].

Chohan v. Cadsky et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 412; 2007 ABQB 498, refd to. [para. 48].

Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 2002 BCCA 132, refd to. [para. 50].

Doyle v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 1681 and Eaton (1991), 110 A.R. 222 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 131 A.R. 101; 25 W.A.C. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Masunda v. Johnson et al. (1999), 24 B.C.T.C. 97; 1999 BCSC 1744, affd. (2001), 158 B.C.A.C. 196; 258 W.A.C. 196; 2001 BCCA 530, refd to. [para. 53].

Willows v. Williams (1951), 2 W.W.R.(N.S.) 657 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Cantelon v. Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, Local 1-71 et al., [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 273 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1974] 1 All E.R. 662 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 67].

Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers' Association et al. (2001), 238 N.B.R.(2d) 112; 617 A.P.R. 112; 2001 NBCA 62, refd to. [para. 70].

McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 311; 26 N.R. 242, refd to. [para. 73].

Barcan v. Zorkin et al. (1991), 113 A.R. 381; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74].

Lewis v. Abel et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. C77; 2007 BCSC 604, refd to. [para. 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), p. 25-8 [para. 87].

Gatley, Clement, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), pp. 592, 593 [para. 88].

Counsel:

Rostyk Sadownik, for the plaintiff;

Ritu Khullar, for the defendant.

This action was heard on December 3-5, 2007, before Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 8, 2008.