Snider v. Calgary Herald et al., (1985) 57 A.R. 93 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 31, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 57 A.R. 93 (QBM)

Snider v. Calgary Herald (1985), 57 A.R. 93 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Snider v. The Calgary Herald, Southam Inc., Swanson, Gold and Blakey

(8303-19008)

Indexed As: Snider v. Calgary Herald et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Quinn, Master in Chambers

January 31, 1985.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action for damages for defamation against a newspaper and others. At discovery the plaintiff refused to answer certain questions, including questions about the names of witnesses. The defendants applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to answer.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Evidence - Topic 1673

Hearsay rule exceptions - Statements of physical sensation and mental condition - Statements identifying plaintiff as person defamed - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the Australian rule that hearsay evidence is admissible to prove that the plaintiff has been identified by members of the public as the person referred to in an allegedly defamatory publication and opined that the rule was not law in Alberta - See paragraphs 8 to 16.

Practice - Topic 4251

Discovery - Examination - Range - General - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the tendency to enlarge the scope of discovery beyond the discovery of facts to the discovery of evidence - See paragraphs 17 to 29.

Practice - Topic 4253

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Names of witnesses - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a plaintiff on discovery was not required to give the names of four people to whom he had made long distance telephone calls, because the names were irrelevant where the issue was only the cost of the calls - See paragraphs 4 to 7.

Practice - Topic 4253

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Names of witnesses - The plaintiff in a libel action refused on discovery to name persons who had mentioned to him the effect of an allegedly defamatory article on them - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to compel the plaintiff to name the persons, because the names were not a substantial part of a material fact of the case - See paragraphs 17 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

Lapinska v. Arenburg, [1962] O.W.N. 249, dist. [para. 6].

Jozwiak v. Sadek, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 275; [1954] 1 All E.R. 3, consd. [para. 12].

Steele v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd. (1974), 2 N.S.W.L.R. 348, consd. [para. 13].

Andrews and another v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd. (1980), 2 N.S.W.L.R. 225, consd. [para. 14].

Sembrat v. Milligan, [1946] 1 W.W.R. 517, consd. [para. 19].

Marriot v. Chamberlain (1886), 17 Q.B.D. 154, consd. [para. 19].

Ansley v. Ansley, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 181, consd. [para. 29].

Jones v. Pemberton (1897), 6 B.C.R. 69, consd. [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Williams, Neil J., Discovery of Civil Litigation Trial Preparation in Canada (1980), 58 Can. Bar Rev. 1 [para. 18].

Counsel:

R.W. Thompson, for the defendants;

M.W. Andreasson, for the plaintiff.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Master in Chambers Quinn, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 31, 1985: