Paletta and Palmont Packers Ltd. v. Lethbridge Herald Co., Mowers and McDonald, (1977) 2 A.R. 529 (TD)

• Judge: O'Byrne, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 04, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 2 A.R. 529 (TD)

Paletta v. Lethbridge Herald Co. (1977), 2 A.R. 529 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Paletta and Palmont Packers Ltd. v. Lethbridge Herald Co. Ltd., Mowers and McDonald

Indexed As: Paletta and Palmont Packers Ltd. v. Lethbridge Herald Co., Mowers and McDonald

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

O'Byrne, J.

February 4, 1977.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6063

Practice - Notice of intention to bring action - Requirement of service of notice of intention to bring action on all defendants - A notice of action was served on a newspaper but separate notices were not served on two employees of the newspaper who were also joined as defendants - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiff's action against the employees because they were not served with a notice of intention to bring action as required by s. 14 of the Defamation Act - See paragraphs 24 to 25.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6065

Practice - Notice of intention to bring action - Sufficiency of the content of the notice of intention - Alberta Defamation Act, s. 14 - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, declared valid the notice of intention to bring action which did not strictly conform to s. 14 - The Alberta Supreme Court stated that a notice under s. 14 is sufficient "if the plaintiff's intention to sue is notified" - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Practice - Topic 5

General principles - Interpretation of rules of practice - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, stated that the modern trend is deal with the substance and merit of issues and not form - See paragraph 18.

Practice - Topic 7024

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement of successful party to party and party costs - Exceptions - A successful defendant was not awarded costs in a defamation action - The successful defendant was a newspaper reporter - The plaintiff was successful against the newspaper which employed the reporter but the action against the reporter was dismissed without costs - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiff's action against the reporter because the plaintiff failed to serve a separate notice of intended action on the newspaper reporter - See paragraph 28.

Statutes - Topic 2262

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Presumption against the abridgement of common law rights - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, interpreted the notice provisions of the Alberta Defamation Act and followed a line of cases which protected common law rights unless expressly abridged - See paragraph 19.

Cases Noticed:

Sentinel Review v. Robinson, [1928] S.C.R. 258, folld. [para. 16].

City of Calgary and Foundation Properties Limited and Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited, 68 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Defamation Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 87, sect. 14 [para. 11].

Counsel:

C.D. O'Brien, for the plaintiffs;

L.D. MacLean, Q.C., for the Lethbridge Herald Company Limited;

W.B. Gill, Q.C., for Mowers and McDonald.

The oral judgment of O'BYRNE, J., was delivered at Calgary, Alberta, on February 4, 1977.