OUELLETTE v MCCANN, 2025 ABKB 362
CAMPBELL J
13.7: Pleadings: other requirements
Case Summary
The case arose from a complaint made by the Respondent, a lawyer, to the Law Society of Alberta (the “LSA”) alleging that the Appellant, also a lawyer, misappropriated $16,000 in trust funds. The Appellant appealed the decision of an Application Judge, asserting that he erred in concluding, among other things, that the Action was not a “defamation action”.
Rules 13.7(b) and (e) require that allegations of defamation must be pleaded with particularity in a Statement of Claim. This is required so that the defendant will know the case they need to meet when they file their Statement of Defence.
The particulars of the material facts necessary to establish a cause of action in defamation were set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61. A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (i) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (ii) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (iii) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
The Court found that although the Statement of Claim did not explicitly mention defamation, it adequately outlined the material facts necessary to support a defamation claim. Specifically, it alleged that the Respondent falsely told the LSA that the Appellant had misappropriated $16,000 in trust funds, including 22 allegedly false statements made during an LSA hearing. These statements could reasonably harm the Appellant’s professional reputation.
The claim also included a request for damages typically associated with defamation, not negligence. The Court concluded that the Appellant pleaded sufficient facts to support a defamation cause of action against the Respondent, even though the word “defamation” was not specifically used.
The Appeal was allowed against the Application Judge’s decision with regard to the allegations of defamation.
View CanLII Details