Taylor-Wright et al. v. CHBC-TV et al., (1999) 4 B.C.T.C. 1 (SC)

• Judge: Drossos, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 05, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 1 (SC)

Taylor-Wright v. CHBC-TV (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 1 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MR.049

Karen Taylor-Wright and Joann Christensen (plaintiffs) v. CHBC-TV, a division of WIC Television Ltd. and WIC Television Ltd. (defendants)

(36564)

Indexed As: Taylor-Wright et al. v. CHBC-TV et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Kelowna

Drossos, J.

February 5, 1999.

Summary:

Taylor-Wright was the administrator and an executive director on the Board of the Armstrong-Spallumcheen Community Ser­vices Society (the Society). In May of 1995 she went on sick leave (partly stress related). Six months later she went on long-term leave. Six months later the Society termin­ated her employment.

Christensen was a long time volunteer with the Society and was co-ordinator of the Society's Christmas Hamper Program in 1994 and 1995. In September of 1994, Christensen became president of the Society's Board of Directors. At the annual meeting in July of 1995, she failed to be re-elected as were all of the Board members save one. Friction developed between the new group (the new Board and its sup­porters) and the old group (the supporters of the old Board and the replaced directors). On January 11, 1996, the old group (including Taylor-Wright and Christensen) requisi­tioned a general meeting of the Society for the purpose of removing and replacing three of the directors. Two of the directors applied for an injunction to prevent the requisitioned meeting on the grounds that: (1) Christensen (one of the proposed direc­tors) had received illegal remuneration, (2) the new directors had requested that the Ministry of Social Services audit certain financial transaction involving Taylor-Wright and (3) because Christensen was under criminal investigation for actions while an employee of the Society. The application was supported by seven affidavits filed on January 19, 1996 which contained allegations of various im­proprieties by Taylor-Wright, Christensen and others. Molgat, a reporter for CHBC-TV, prepared five separate news stories for broadcast in January and Febru­ary. On February 7 and 13, 1996, a large number of affidavits were filed by the old group and its supporters. Molgat failed to read the material filed by the old group during February. The trial court denied the application for the injunction. In March of 1996, the new Board was reaffirmed in office. Taylor-Wright and Christensen sued CHBC-TV for defamation and claimed general, aggravated and punitive damages. They claimed that CHBC-TV made allega­tions of mishandled money, theft of donated goods, the wrongful taking of donated foods, wrongful payment of end of year bonuses to food bank employees, etc.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that only the last two broadcasts (those on Febru­ary 13, 1996) were actionable. They were not fair because of sig­nifi­cant and rel­evant omissions. Therefore, the defence of privilege or fair comment at common law or under s. 3 of the Libel and Slander Act was not available. The court awarded Taylor-Wright general damages of $35,000 and Christensen $25,000.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - See para­graphs 153 and 154.

Libel and Slander - Topic 745

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - Slander - Statements which are slanderous - See paragraphs 22 to 24 and 85.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1944

Publication - What constitutes - Radio or television broadcast - See paragraphs 25, 27 and 85.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2861

Defences - Justification or truth - General -See paragraphs 31 to 34 and 88 to 132.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2928

Defences - Absolute privilege - State­ments made in the course of judicial or legal proceedings - Judicial documents and exhibits - See paragraphs 126 to 133.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - See paragraphs 39 to 49, 63 to 73 and 111 to 125.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of mal­ice - See paragraphs 50 to 54.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2992

Defences - Qualified privilege - Judicial proceedings - Judicial documents and exhibits - See paragraphs 39 to 49, 63 to 73 and 88 to 110,

Libel and Slander - Topic 3003

Defences - Statutory privilege - When available - See paragraphs 55 to 73 and 138 to 143.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3114

Defences - Fair comment - What consti­tutes fair comment - See paragraphs 35 to 38, 88 to 108, 111 to 125 and 138 to 143.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4063

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair com­ment or qualified privilege - Requirement of express or actual malice - See para­graphs 50 to 54 and 134 to 137.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Aggravated damages - See paragraph 155.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - See paragraph 155.

Cases Noticed:

O'Neill v. Christiano (1961), 36 W.W.R.(N.S.) 617 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Holt v. Sun Publishing Co. (1979), 100 D.L.R.(3d) 447 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd.; Lewis v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [1964] A.C. 234 (H.L.), consd. [para. 24].

Rubber Improvements Ltd. v. Daily Tele­graph Ltd.; Rubber Improvements Ltd. v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. - see Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd.; Lewis v. Asso­ciated Newspapers Ltd.

Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1982] 3 W.W.R. 97 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 25].

Dale's Trad'n Post Ltd. v. Rhodes et al. (1987), 43 C.C.L.T. 37 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co., [1965] S.C.R. 297, refd to. [para. 27].

Globe & Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 28].

Thomas v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Sanders, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 289; 27 A.R. 547 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [para. 29].

Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 30].

Courchene v. Marlborough Hotel Co. (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 109 (Man. Q.B.), affd. [1972] 1 W.W.R. 149 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

M'Pherson v. Daniels (1829), 109 E.R. 448, consd. [para. 31].

Upton v. Better Business Bureau of the Mainland of British Columbia (1980), 23 B.C.L.R. 228 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Boland v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1961), 29 D.L.R.(2d) 401 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Price v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 179, refd to. [para. 34].

Vander Zalm v. Times Publishing Ltd., [1980] 4 W.W.R. 259 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 35].

Christie v. Geiger and Edmonton Sun (1986), 74 A.R. 1; 38 C.C.L.T. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Fung v. Lu, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 133 (S.C.), consd. [para. 36].

Holt v. Sun Publishing Co. (1978), 83 D.L.R.(3d) 761 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Grech v. Odhams Press, [1958] 2 Q.B. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Brent Walker Group v. Time Out Ltd., [1991] 2 All E.R. 753 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Kimber v. Press Association, [1893] 1 Q.B. 65 (C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning (1995), 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 40].

Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R. 339, refd to. [para. 41].

Bennett v. Sun Publishing Co., [1972] 4 W.W.R. 643 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

McLoughlin v. Kutasy (1979), 26 N.R. 242; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 620 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Cowie v. Robinson (1928), 62 O.L.R. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Andrews v. Chapman (1853), 175 E.R. 558, refd to. [para. 45].

Cardwell et al. v. Hutchinson et al. (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 279; 147 W.A.C. 279; 36 B.C.L.R.(3d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Netupsky v. Craig (1972), 28 D.L.R.(3d) 742 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Christie v. Westcom Radio Group Ltd. (1990), 75 D.L.R.(4th) 546 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Taylor v. Despard (1956), 6 D.L.R.(2d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, consd. [para. 64].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al. (1995), 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 609 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 144].

Neeld v. Western Broadcasting Co. (1976), 65 D.L.R.(3d) 574 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 145].

Statutes Noticed:

Libel and Slander Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 263, sect. 3(1) [para. 55]; sect. 4(1) [para. 68].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Torts (Second) (1965), sect. 559 [para. 22].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), pp. 889 to 899 [para. 81]; 897 [para. 60]; 903 to 905 [para. 48].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), p. 269 [para. 59].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (6th Ed. 1997), p. 677 [para. 22].

Counsel:

F. Gregory Reif and Joseph Deuling, for the plaintiffs;

Daniel W. Burnett, for the defendants.

This action was heard by Drossos, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Kelowna, British Columbia, on March 31, April 1-3, 6-8, and June 1-3, 1998. The decision of the court was given on February 5, 1999.