Rubin v. Ross et al., 2010 SKQB 249

• Judge: Keene, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 14, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2010 SKQB 249;(2010), 358 Sask.R. 183 (QB)

Rubin v. Ross (2010), 358 Sask.R. 183 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.058

Dr. Stan Rubin (plaintiff) v. Glenn Ross, Sam Nowaselski and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 (defendants)

(2007 Q.B.G. No. 457; 2010 SKQB 249)

Indexed As: Rubin v. Ross et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Keene, J.

July 14, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff was the director of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed a grievance with the University alleging that Bowman, a veterinary technician employed by the University, had been harassed. The grievance was drafted by executive members of the union, including Ross and Nowaselski. The grievance stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff "has not only refused to prevent the harassment but has been an active part of the harassment himself". Ross posted the grievance on bulletin boards in the Veterinary Teaching Hospital. In addition, CUPE mailed a newsletter to its members which included a copy of the grievance and the grievance was posted on the CUPE website. The plaintiff sued CUPE, Ross and Nowaselski for defamation.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff had proven that he was defamed, but the defendants had successfully raised the defence of qualified privilege. The court made a provisional order for damages, stating that it would have awarded general damages of $25,000.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 644

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Disparagement of reputation - The plaintiff was the director of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan - The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed a grievance with the University alleging that Bowman, a veterinary technician employed by the University, had been harassed - The grievance was drafted by executive members of the union, including Ross and Nowaselski - The grievance stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff "has not only refused to prevent the harassment but has been an active part of the harassment himself" - Ross posted the grievance on bulletin boards in the VTH - In addition, CUPE mailed a newsletter to its members which included a copy of the grievance and the grievance was posted on the CUPE website - The plaintiff sued CUPE, Ross and Nowaselski for defamation - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff had proven that he was defamed - There was no evidence that the plaintiff had actively harassed Bowman and the impugned words would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person - However, the court held that the defence of qualified privilege succeeded - The defendants did not act maliciously in drafting or publishing the grievance report - The wording of the grievance report was based on their belief that the plaintiff seemed unable to control the harassment in the workplace - The defendants did not act with a reckless regard of the truth or for any improper purpose - The court made a provisional order for damages, stating that it would have awarded general damages of $25,000 - See paragraphs 42 to 48 and 73 to 110.

Libel and Slander - Topic 684

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - Libel - What constitutes a defamatory statement - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2928

Defences - Absolute privilege - Judicial, quasi-judicial or legal proceedings (incl. statements, pleadings, etc.) - The plaintiff was the director of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan - The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed a grievance with the University alleging that Bowman, a veterinary technician employed by the University, had been harassed - The grievance was drafted by executive members of the union, including Ross and Nowaselski - The grievance stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff "has not only refused to prevent the harassment but has been an active part of the harassment himself" - Ross posted the grievance on bulletin boards in the VTH - In addition, CUPE mailed a newsletter to its members which included a copy of the grievance and the grievance was posted on the CUPE website - The plaintiff sued CUPE, Ross and Nowaselski for defamation - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the defence of absolute privilege - While an arbitration board or hearing under the Trade Union Act was a quasi-judicial proceeding, the grievance report as published was not intimately connected to the quasi-judicial body - The grievance report, per se, while it remained within the confines of its original intended purpose, would be protected by absolute privilege - However, the impugned words in that document ceased to enjoy that protection once the document was published in such a broad way and for the purposes stated by the defendants (i.e. to gain further information and potential witnesses for the arbitration) - See paragraphs 51 to 72.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - General principles - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640; 397 N.R. 1; 258 O.A.C. 285; 2009 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 42].

O'Connor v. Waldron, [1935] 1 W.W.R. 1; [1935] 1 D.L.R. 260 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

O'Connor v. Waldron, [1931] O.R. 608; 56 C.C.C. 296; [1931] 4 D.L.R. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Getz v. Opseth (2005), 261 Sask.R. 1; 2005 SKQB 69, refd to. [para. 54].

Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc. v. Sulz, [2001] 6 W.W.R. 476; 203 Sask.R. 115; 240 W.A.C. 115; 2001 SKCA 11, refd to. [para. 56].

Venneri v. Bascom (1996), 28 O.R.(3d) 281 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Pope et al. v. O'Halloran et al., [2006] 4 W.W.R. 16; 371 A.R. 137; 354 W.A.C. 137; 258 D.L.R.(4th) 333; 2005 ABCA 263, refd to. [para. 78].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 79].

Dinyer-Fraser v. Laurentian Bank et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 225; 2005 BCSC 225, refd to. [para. 93].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994) (1999 Looseleaf Supp.) (2009 Update, Release 3), vol. 2, pp. 12-2, 12-3 [para. 51]; c. 12.4(5) [para. 64]; pp. 12-276 to 12-288 [para. 64]; 13-4, 13-5 [para. 73]; 13-208 to 13-212 [para. 74]; 16-2 [para. 83]; 25-66 to 25-70 [para. 105].

Counsel:

Catherine A. Sloan, for the plaintiff;

Andrew M. Mason, for the defendants.

This action was heard before Keene, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on July 14, 2010.