Vellacott v. Laliberte,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Popescul
• Neutral Citation: 2012 SKQB 23
• Citation: (2012), 390 Sask.R. 120 (QB),2012 SKQB 23,390 SaskR 120,(2012), 390 SaskR 120 (QB),390 Sask.R. 120
• Date: 17 January 2012
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Vellacott v. Laliberte (2012), 390 Sask.R. 120 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.050

Maurice Vellacott (plaintiff) v. George Laliberte (defendant)

(2006 Q.B.G. No. 387; 2012 SKQB 23)

Indexed As: Vellacott v. Laliberte

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Popescul, C.J.Q.B.

January 17, 2012.

Summary:

During a televised call-in program broadcast live by Saskatoon's Shaw Cable Television, the defendant directed the following question to the plaintiff, a federal member of Parliament: "Were you also removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault on your secretary?" There was no factual basis to justify asking such a question. The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant for defamation pursuant to Part Forty ("Simplified Procedure") of the Queen's Bench Rules. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the case could be decided on a summary basis and that a summary trial was not required. The court concluded that the question posed by the defendant constituted a defamatory statement and awarded the plaintiff $5,000 general damages.

Libel and Slander - Topic 605

The statement - General - Inferences from - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 646 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 644

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Disparagement of reputation - During a televised call-in program broadcast live by Saskatoon's Shaw Cable Television, the defendant directed the following question to the plaintiff, a federal member of Parliament who was seeking re-election: "Were you also removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault on your secretary?" - There was no factual basis to justify asking such a question - The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant for defamation pursuant to Part Forty ("Simplified Procedure") of the Queen's Bench Rules - The plaintiff applied for summary judgment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the question posed by the defendant constituted a defamatory statement - To suggest that the plaintiff perpetrated a sexual assault on his secretary and that this event may have been the catalyst that caused him to be removed from his church would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the community - The court awarded $5,000 the plaintiff general damages - The lack of evidence respecting the size of the audience of the local cable television program directly contributed to a damage award that was considerably less than might otherwise be the case if it had been proven that the broadcast audience was extensive - The court declined to award aggravated damages where there was no evidence that the defendant was motivated by malice - It also declined to award punitive damages - The $5,000 award of general damages was large enough to have a significant punitive effect on the defendant and ought to deter others - See paragraphs 20 to 39.

Libel and Slander - Topic 646

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - From meaning of words themselves - During a live televised call-in program, the defendant directed the following question to the plaintiff, a federal member of Parliament: "Were you also removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault on your secretary?" - There was no factual basis to justify asking such a question - The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant for defamation - The defendant argued that the impugned words did not fit within the definition of defamation because the words did not express a conclusion, but merely asked a question - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "this argument must fail because whether words have a defamatory meaning is determined from the 'ordinary meaning of the published words themselves'. ... Further, the 'ordinary' meaning includes any implied, inferential or indirect meaning that a reasonable person would draw from the words" - See paragraph 22.

Libel and Slander - Topic 745

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - Slander - Statements which are slanderous - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 806

The statement - Actionable statements per se - Words imputing criminal offence - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

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

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

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

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages (incl. measure of) - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 644 ].

Practice - Topic 5274.6

Trials - General - Simplified procedure actions, fast track litigation, etc. - Summary judgment - When available - During a live televised call-in program, the defendant directed the following question to the plaintiff, a federal member of Parliament: "Were you also removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault on your secretary?" - There was no factual basis to justify asking such a question - The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant for defamation pursuant to Part Forty ("Simplified Procedure") of the Queen's Bench Rules - The plaintiff applied for summary judgment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The circumstances where a court should decide a case brought within the simplified procedure on a summary basis are considerably broader than general summary judgment applications ... Rule 492 is clear and unambiguous. Disposing of the action at the summary judgment stage is mandatory unless the presiding judge is unable to decide the issues in the absence of cross- examination or it is otherwise unjust to do so. ... Cases such as this, where the facts are not in dispute and the Court is called upon to make a decision based upon a legal analysis, is exactly the type of case contemplated by the summary judgment provisions of the simplified procedure. ... Accordingly, I conclude that this case can be decided on a summary basis and that a summary trial is not required" - See paragraphs 8 to 10.

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. 12].

Walker and Walker Brothers Quarries Ltd. v. CFTO Ltd. et al. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 10; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 224; 59 O.R.(2d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

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. 15].

Manno et al. v. Henry et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. C38; 2008 BCSC 738, refd to. [para. 16].

Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] 1 All E.R. 801 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Tremblay v. Campbell (2010), 305 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 948 A.P.R. 1; 2010 NLCA 62, refd to. [para. 19].

Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (2000), 105 O.T.C. 91; 48 O.R.(3d) 656 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 22].

Dhami et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1811; 2001 BCSC 1811, refd to. [para. 22].

St. Pierre v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 241; 2006 BCSC 241, refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 492 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Evan H. Jenkins, for the plaintiff;

Timothy W. Froese, for the defendant.

This action was heard before Popescul, C.J.Q.B., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on January 17, 2012.