Varga v. Van Panhuis, 2000 ABQB 538

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 2000
• Citations: 2000 ABQB 538;(2000), 269 A.R. 211 (QB)

Varga v. Van Panhuis (2000), 269 A.R. 211 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. AU.118

Alexander Charles ("Chuck") Varga (plaintiff) v. Klaas Van Panhuis and Johanna Van Panhuis (defendants)

(Action No. 9803-20662; 2000 ABQB 538)

Indexed As: Varga v. Van Panhuis

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

July 25, 2000.

Summary:

Varga sued the defendants for defamation.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and awarded $5,000 general damages.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - Varga was running for re-elec­tion as a municipal councillor - The defendants, Varga's neighbours, were unhappy with a zoning variance granted to another neighbour - Varga was a member of the Planning Commission that originally approved the variance - The defendants circulated a letter alleging, inter alia, "a blatant abuse of power and lack of moral leadership and honesty" in the town and asking whether Varga should be "elected again or would it be better to leave his ballot unmarked in the voting booth?" - Varga lost the election - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that Varga did not prove that he lost the elec­tion or suffered any social damage because of the defama­tory letter - The court awarded Varga $5,000 in general damages - See para­graphs 38 to 47.

Libel and Slander - Topic 603

The statement - General - Defamatory defined - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that words were defamatory even if their source did not intend them to be defamatory - Defamation was a strict liability tort - Further, comments were defamatory whether or not they were believed by the persons to whom they were published - See paragraph 24.

Libel and Slander - Topic 684

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - Libel - What constitutes a defamatory statement - [See Damage Awards - Topic 632 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 3109

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Truth - Varga was a town councillor - The defendants, Varga's neighbours, were unhappy with a zoning variance granted to another neigh­bour - Varga was a member of the Planning Commission that originally approved the variance - The defendants circulated a letter alleging, inter alia, "a blatant abuse of power and lack of moral leadership and honesty" in the town and asking whether Varga should be "elected again or would it be better to leave his ballot unmarked in the voting booth?" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that portions of the letter were defamatory - The court held that although a mat­ter of public interest, the defence of fair com­ment was not available to the defendants because the facts on which they comment­ed were not true - See paragraph 29.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4064

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair com­ment or qualified privilege - Inference of malice - Varga was a town councillor - The defend­ants, Varga's neighbours, were unhappy with a zoning variance granted to another neigh­bour - Varga was a member of the Planning Commission that originally approved the variance - The defendants circulated a letter alleging, inter alia, "a blatant abuse of power and lack of moral leadership and honesty" in the town and asking whether Varga should be "elected again or would it be better to leave his ballot unmarked in the voting booth?" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that portions of the letter were defamatory - The court held that the defendants were disentitled to a qualified privi­lege defence because they were reckless with the facts and, in the context of this case, that in itself con­stituted malice - See para­graphs 31 to 35.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4146

Malice - Evidence - Actual malice - Varga was a town councillor - The defend­ants, Varga's neighbours, were unhappy with a zoning variance granted to another neigh­bour - Varga was a member of the Planning Commission that originally approved the variance - The defendants circulated a letter addressing the matter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that portions of the letter were defamatory - The court held, inter alia, that the male defendant was disentitled to a qualified privi­lege defence because of malice - The nature of his attacks against Varga was personal - At trial, without basis, he accused Varga of ethnic cleans­ing, of want­ing to run all Dutch people out of the neighbourhood - Further, he called Varga an "asshole" both pub­lic­ly and in private con­fron­ta­tions between them - See para­graphs 35 and 36.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Elements and considerations - [See Damage Awards - Topic 632 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Elements and considerations - Varga, a municipal councillor, was running for re-election - The defendants, Varga's neigh­bours, were unhappy with a zoning vari­ance granted to another neighbour - Varga was a member of the Planning Commis­sion that originally approved the variance -The defendants circulated a letter about the matter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that portions of the letter were defamatory - In awarding damages, the court considered that the publication of the defamatory statements was serious because: the letter was published during a municipal election and by delivery to every home, which would tend to ensure that people would actually read it; the allegations were made in relation to Varga's position as a municipal councillor, rather than his position as an individual; because Varga had an established record of public service in his community, these allegations would tend to bring him into disrepute in his community and be par­ticularly hurtful to him; and the publication occurred two days before the election so Varga could do little to defend himself against the allegations - See paragraph 40.

Cases Noticed:

Christie v. Geiger and Edmonton Sun (1984), 58 A.R. 168; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 316 (Q.B.), affd. [1987] 1 W.W.R. 357; 74 A.R. 1; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Halluk v. Brown (1982), 41 A.R. 350 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Holt v. Sun Publishing Co. (1978), 83 D.L.R.(3d) 761 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Doyle v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 1681 et al. (1991), 110 A.R. 222 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 131 A.R. 101; 25 W.A.C. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Barcan v. Zorkin et al. (1991), 113 A.R. 381; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 119, refd to. [para. 4].

Tornberg v. Worrell, [1995] A.J. 1312 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

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

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

Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 D.L.R. 647 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Pearson v. Harris, [1937] 3 W.W.R. 607 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Hiltz and Seamone Co. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (1997), 164 N.S.R.(2d) 161 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Turner v. Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Pictures Ltd., [1950] 1 All E.R. 449 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

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 4].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dielemen (1994), 117 D.L.R.(4th) 449 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

Archer v. Ritchie (John) & Co. (1891), 18 R. 719 (Ct. of Sess.), refd to. [para. 6].

Martin v. Manitoba Free Press Co. (1892), 8 Man. Rep. SO 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers Ltd. (1980), 18 B.C.L.R. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Baxter v. Canadian Broadcasting Corpo­ration (1980), 28 N.B.R.(2d) 114; 63 A.P.R. 114 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Broadway Approvals Ltd. v. Odhams Press Ltd., [1965] 1 W.L.R. 805 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bordeleau v. Bonnyville Nouvelle Ltd. (1992), 136 A.R. 178; 6 Alta. L.R.(3d) 128 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Lange v. Atkinson, [1998] 3 N.Z.L.R. 424 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bookbinder v. Tebbit, [1989] 1 All E.R. 1169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Peterson v. Advertiser Newspapers Ltd. (1997), 127 F.L.R. 186 (South Australia S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Price v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 179, refd to. [para. 6].

Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 4].

Boland v. The Globe and Mail, [1961] O.R. 712 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Inde­pendent Canadian Transit Union et al., [1997] 5 W.W.R. 662; 195 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), additional reasons [1997] 7 W.W.R. 696; 203 A.R. 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bulletin Co. v. Rice Sheppard (1917), 55 S.C.R. 454, refd to. [para. 6].

Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1968] 2 Q.B. 157, refd to. [para. 6].

Pearson v. Harris, [1937] 3 W.W.R. 602 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bradney v. Virtue (1969), 28 N.Z.L.R. 828 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Witaker v. Huntington (1980), 15 C.C.L.T. 19 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Gauvin v. Twin Deer Parts and Service Ltd. (1999), 269 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, R.E., Law of Defamation in Canada (1987), vols. 1 and 2, pp. 15-60.1 et seq. [para. 5].

Laux, F.A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (1st Ed. 1990), pp. 98 et seq. [para. 5].

Laux, F.A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 2-1 et seq. [para. 5].

Counsel:

Daniel P. Carroll (Field Atkinson Perraton), for the plaintiff;

Klaas and Johanna Van Panhuis, on their own behalf.

This action was heard on June 19, 2000, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 25, 2000.