Voutsinos v. New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council, (1993) 136 N.B.R.(2d) 364 (TD)

• Judge: Dickson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: July 13, 1993
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1993), 136 N.B.R.(2d) 364 (TD)

Voutsinos v. N.B. Research (1993), 136 N.B.R.(2d) 364 (TD);

    136 R.N.-B.(2e) 364; 347 A.P.R. 364

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Cosmos M. Voutsinos (plaintiff) v. New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council (defendant)

(F/C/675/91)

Indexed As: Voutsinos v. New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Dickson, J.

July 13, 1993.

Summary:

An employee sued for damages for wrong­ful dismissal and defamation. The employer applied under rule 27 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court to strike out paragraphs in the statement of claim relating to the def­amation asserting that (1) the employee failed to provide particulars of the exact words alleged to have been broadcast, pub­lished, circulated or made and (2) the para­graphs were improper pleadings, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the court's process. The employee applied under rule 27.08 to strike paragraphs from the statement of defence, asserting that the employer failed to provide adequate par­ticulars as demanded.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the em­ployer's application and dismissed the em­ployee's application.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6126

Practice - Pleadings - Statement of claim - Setting out slanderous words - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 6226 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 6226

Practice - Particulars - Of defamatory words - An engineer sued his former employer for damages for defamation - Pursuant to a demand, the engineer pro­vided particulars naming potential witnesses and stating that he received a defamatory letter from one of the em­ployer's chief executive officers - The particulars also referred to conversations between the employer's officers, directors or employees, but did not suggest outside communication - The precise words claimed to be defamatory were not dis­closed - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the employer's application to strike the portion of the statement of claim relating to the alleged defamation where the alleged defamatory words were not pleaded - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Practice - Topic 1935

Particulars - Bars to granting of order - Where particulars provided are adequate - A plaintiff applied under rule 27.08 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court to strike out paragraphs of the statement of defence on the basis that particulars provided were inadequate - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, refused the application where rule 27.08 provided for the ordering of the provision of good and sufficient particulars and not for the strik­ing out of pleadings - The court stated that it would have dismissed an application for better and further particulars where the particulars provided alerted the plaintiff to the circumstances relied upon, enabling him to seek elaboration on examination for discovery - See paragraph 12.

Practice - Topic 1952

Pleadings - Particulars - In defamation action - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 6226 ].

Practice - Topic 2205

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Ap­plication for - How made - [See Practice - Topic 1935 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pirie v. Carroll (1931), 4 M.P.R. 127 (N.B.C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

Olsen v. St. Martin (1981), 32 A.R. 51 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Berry v. Retail Merchants Association, [1924] 2 D.L.R. 916; 18 Sask. L.R. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Lougheed v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1979), 15 A.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bulkley Nechako Cable Vision Ltd. v. CKPO Television Ltd. (1982), 36 B.C.L.R. 23 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Quann v. Chatham (Town) et al. (1990), 107 N.B.R.(2d) 392; 267 A.P.R. 392 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 11].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N Plc. et al.

Hunt v. T & N Plc. et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 27 [para. 1]; rule 27.08 [paras. 2, 3]; rule 27.09 [paras. 3, 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Def­amation in Canada (1987), vol. 2, pp. 847-848 [para. 11]; 850 [para. 12].

Porter and Potts, Canadian Libel Practice (1986), p. 42 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Gordon F. Gregory, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

David Duncan Young, for the defendant.

These applications were heard before Dickson, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered his decision on July 13, 1993.