Wilson et al. v. Switlo et al., 2013 BCCA 471

• Judge: Frankel, Neilson and Hinkson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Wednesday October 30, 2013
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2013 BCCA 471;(2013), 346 B.C.A.C. 57 (CA)

Wilson v. Switlo (2013), 346 B.C.A.C. 57 (CA);

    592 W.A.C. 57

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.008

Steve Wilson, Margaret Grant, Jonah (Keith) Nyce, Ellis Ross, Kevin Stewart, Rod Bolton, Ken Hall, Alex Grant Sr., Godfrey Grant Jr. and Henry Amos Sr. (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Alan Williams Sr., Morris Amos, Harvey Grant Jr. (in his capacity as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Estate of Harvey Grant Sr.), and Jennifer Grant Howard, also known as Jennifer Grant (appellants/defendants)

(CA039439; 2013 BCCA 471)

Indexed As: Wilson et al. v. Switlo et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Frankel, Neilson and Hinkson, JJ.A.

October 30, 2013.

Summary:

The plaintiffs and defendants were both members of the Haisla First Nation. The defendants opposed regulatory approval of an energy supply contract. The plaintiffs supported approval. Both groups were intervenors at a review conducted by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The defendants, in letters to the Commission, accused the plaintiffs of conflict of interest, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, incompetence, corruption, breach of trust and treason. In a five page document read out to the public under the heading of "The Traditional Sovereign Tribal Court of the Haisla Hemaas", most of the defamatory statements were repeated. The plaintiffs sued for damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded absolute privilege for defamatory statements made in the Commission proceedings (quasi-judicial tribunal) and claimed that absolute privilege also attached to statements made by the "tribal court".

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1287, allowed the defamation action. The court found that the Commission review hearing was sufficiently court-like to be an occasion of absolute privilege. However, the defamatory statements were for the most part not protected by absolute privilege because they were gratuitous and irrelevant. Absolute privilege did not attach to publication of the five page document, because the defendants failed to establish that the tribal court was a tribunal recognized by law. The defendants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. A review hearing before the Commission was not an occasion to which absolute privilege attached. The court agreed that it was not established that the tribal court was a tribunal recognized by law. Accordingly, neither the letters to the Commission nor the five page document by the "tribal court" were protected by absolute privilege.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2928

Defences - Absolute privilege - Statements made in the course of judicial or legal proceedings - See paragraphs 44 to 105.

Cases Noticed:

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 29].

Trapp v. Mackie, [1979] 1 All E.R. 489 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 37].

M.J.M. v. D.J.M. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 303; 216 W.A.C. 303; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 473; 2000 SKCA 53, refd to. [para. 41].

Duke et al. v. Puts, [2004] 6 W.W.R. 208; 241 Sask.R. 187; 313 W.A.C. 187; 2004 SKCA 12, refd to. [para. 41].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 46].

Martin v. Lavigne et al. (2011), 302 B.C.A.C. 121; 511 W.A.C. 121; 17 B.C.L.R.(5th) 132; 2011 BCCA 104, refd to. [para. 47].

Liboiron v. Majola (2007), 401 A.R. 257; 391 W.A.C. 257; 72 Alta. L.R.(4th) 222; 2007 ABCA 18, refd to. [para. 48].

Domtar Inc. v. ABB Inc. et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 461; 369 N.R. 152; 2007 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Chehil (M.S.) (2013), 448 N.R. 370; 335 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1060 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 Sask.R. 294; 140 W.A.C. 294, refd to. [para. 52].

Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 275, refd to. [para. 54].

Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 55].

Banks v. Globe and Mail Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 474, refd to. [para. 56].

Rubin v. Ross et al., [2013] 7 W.W.R. 299; 409 Sask.R. 202; 568 W.A.C. 202; 2013 SKCA 21, leave to appeal refused [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 181, refd to. [para. 59].

Chohan v. Cadsky et al. (2009), 464 A.R. 57; 467 W.A.C. 57; 2009 ABCA 334, leave to appeal refused [2010] 1 S.C.R. vii; 407 N.R. 390; 502 A.R. 400; 517 W.A.C. 400, refd to. [para. 59].

Campbell v. Jones et al. (2002), 209 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 656 A.P.R. 81; 220 D.L.R.(4th) 201; 2002 NSCA 128, leave to appeal refused [2003] 1 S.C.R. vii; 320 N.R. 195; 221 N.S.R.(2d) 400; 697 A.P.R. 400, refd to. [para. 59].

Hung v. Gardiner et al. (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 4; 302 W.A.C. 4; 227 D.L.R.(4th) 282; 2003 BCCA 257, refd to. [para. 62].

Schut v. Magee et al. (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 317; 302 W.A.C. 317; 15 B.C.L.R.(4th) 250; 2003 BCCA 417, refd to. [para. 66].

Sussman v. Eales (1985), 1 C.P.C.(2d) 14 (Ont. H.C.), revd. in part (1986), 25 C.P.C.(2d) 7 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Hamouth v. Edwards & Angell (2005), 210 B.C.A.C. 225; 348 W.A.C. 225; 253 D.L.R.(4th) 372; 2005 BCCA 172, refd to. [para. 67].

Big Pond Communications 2000 Inc. v. Kennedy, [2004] O.T.C. 213; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 727 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

Amato et al. v. Welsh et al. (2013), 305 O.A.C. 155; 2013 ONCA 258, refd to. [para. 73].

Elliott v. Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau et al. (2005), 236 N.S.R.(2d) 104; 749 A.P.R. 104; 256 D.L.R.(4th) 674; 2005 NSCA 115, refd to. [para. 75].

Kwikwetlem First Nation v. British Columbia Transmission Corp. et al. (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 250; 449 W.A.C. 250; 89 B.C.L.R.(4th) 273; 2009 BCCA 68, refd to. [para. 87].

Boulter v. Kent Justices, [1897] A.C. 556 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 91].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States (2nd Ed. 1999) (2011 Looseleaf Update, Release 4), vol. 3, §§ 12.4(2) [para. 82]; 12.4(7) [para. 57].

Gatley, Clement, Libel and Slander (4th Ed. 1953), p. 252 [para. 55].

Gatley, Clement, Libel and Slander (11th Ed. 2008), §§ 13.4, 36.17 [para. 57].

Counsel:

C.E. Hunter and G.J. Allen, for the appellants;

R.D. McConchie and R.A. McConchie, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 14-15, 2013, at Vancouver, B.C., before Frankel, Neilson and Hinkson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On October 30, 2013, Frankel, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.