St. Michael's Extended Care Centre Society and Shulakewych v. Paterson, (1993) 142 A.R. 227 (QBM)
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Case Date | July 13, 1993 |
| Citations | (1993), 142 A.R. 227 (QBM) |
St. Michael's Ext. Care v. Paterson (1993), 142 A.R. 227 (QBM)
MLB headnote and full text
St. Michael's Extended Care Centre Society, Bohdan Shulakewych and Lydia Shulakewych (plaintiffs) v. Shannon Dawn Paterson (defendant)
(Action No. 9203-24737)
Indexed As: St. Michael's Extended Care Centre Society and Shulakewych v. Paterson
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Edmonton
Funduk, Master in Chambers
July 13, 1993.
Summary:
The St. Michael's Extended Care Centre Society sued Paterson for defamation. During discovery, Paterson declined to answer certain questions. The society applied for an order directing Paterson to answer the questions.
A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly.
Libel and Slander - Topic 6190
Practice - Discovery - Range of questions to defendant - A society claimed that a former employee defamed it by saying certain things to the employees of a newspaper - It also claimed that, inter alia, the employee violated an oath of confidentiality - At examination for discovery, the employee declined to state what she did say to the newspaper's employees - The employee submitted that she must first be asked if she said what she was alleged to have said - Also, the alleged meeting took place on a different date - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that relevant questions do not have to be asked in a certain sequence - The Master ordered the employee to answer the line of questions in that general category - See paragraphs 1 to 23.
Libel and Slander - Topic 6190
Practice - Discovery - Range of questions to defendant - A society claimed that a former employee defamed it by saying certain things to the employees of a newspaper - It also claimed that, inter alia, the employee violated an oath of confidentiality - At examination for discovery, the employee declined to answer questions going to the employee's employment with the society - The society claimed the questions were relevant to the issue of malice - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench directed the former employee to answer the questions - See paragraphs 24 and 25.
Libel and Slander - Topic 6190
Practice - Discovery - Range of questions to defendant - A society claimed that a former employee defamed it by saying certain things to the employees of a newspaper - It also claimed that, inter alia, the employee violated an oath of confidentiality - At examination for discovery, the employee declined to answer questions concerning her prior employment and education - The society claimed the questions were relevant to the issue of malice - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the questions did not have to be answered as they were not relevant - See paragraph 26.
Libel and Slander - Topic 6190
Practice - Discovery - Range of questions to defendant - A society claimed that a former employee defamed it by saying certain things to the employees of a newspaper - It also claimed that the employee violated an oath of confidentiality as well as her post-employment duty of confidentiality - At examination for discovery, the employee declined to answer questions concerning the alleged breach of confidentiality and the duty not to disclose the society's business on the ground they failed to disclose a cause of action - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the questions had to be answered - "A defendant cannot evade answering questions of fact simply by pleading that no cause of action is disclosed" - See paragraphs 27 to 30.
Cases Noticed:
Gnys v. Stansfield et al. (1975), 11 O.R.(2d) 642 (Master), refd to. [para. 10].
Collins v. Jones, [1955] 2 All E.R. 145, refd to. [para. 10].
Caulfield Creative Arts Ltd. et al. v. Cats Defence Support Systems Inc. et al. (1987), 86 A.R. 172 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 13].
O'Callaghan v. Edmonton Sun Publishing Ltd. et al. (1981), 34 A.R. 207 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 15].
Czuy and Czuy v. Mitchell, Edmonton General Hospital and General Hospital (Grey Nuns) of Edmonton, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 676; 1 A.R. 434 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].
Counsel:
L. Hendrickson (Hendrickson Gower & Massing), for the plaintiffs;
R. Sadownik (Wheatley Sadownik), for the defendant.
This matter was heard by Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 13, 1993.
To continue reading
Request your trial