IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA
IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
ACTION NUMBER: 0103 14569
BETWEEN:
FERREL CHRISTENSEN
PLAINTIFF
- and -
THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY, NP HOLDINGS COMPANY, GLOBAL
COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
DEFENDANTS
1. The Defendant The National Post Company is a partnership registered under the laws of the Province of A!berta and publishes, within the meaning of s. 1(c) of the Defamation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-6, a daily newspaper known as The National Post. The partners forming The National Post Company are the Defendants NP Holdings Company and Global Communications Limited, both of which are limited companies duly registered pursuant to the laws of the Province of Alberta.
2. The Defendant Donna Laframboise (“Laframboise”) was at all material times a reporter and columnist employed by The National Post Company.
3. The Defendants The National Post Company and Laframboise will be hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Defendants”.
-2-
4. The Plaintiff Ferrel Christensen (“Christensen”) resides in the City of Edmonton, Alberta.
General Defences
5. Except as hereinafter expressly admitted, the Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in the Statement of Claim. The Defendants accede to the proposal in paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim.
6. Christensen failed to serve the Defendants with proper or adequate notice of his intention to commence this action, as required by the Defamation Act.
7. With respect to paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants admit that The National Post Company published an article on Tuesday, April 17, 2001, in The National Post newspaper under the title “Scandal taints fathers’ rights group” (hereinafter “the article”).
8. With respect to paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, Laframboise denies saying the words as set out by Christensen in subparagraph 10(a) or any words to that effect.
9. The Defendants deny that the words set out by Christensen in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim or the words in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim taken in the context of the article as a whole are defamatory, false or malicious.
10. The Defendants state that the words set out by Christensen in paragraph 5 and paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, or the words taken in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article do not bear, are not understood to bear, are incapable of bearing in their natural and ordinary meaning, and are incapable of being understood to bear any or all of the meanings alleged in paragraphs 6,11 and 12 of the Statement of Claim, or at all.
-3-
11. The Defendants deny that the words set out by Christensen in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim, or the words taken in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article contain false and defamatory innuendos as alleged in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claim or at all.
12. The Defendants deny that the words set out by Christensen in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim, or the words taken in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article were made by the Defendants with any malice as alleged in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim, or at all.
13. The Defendants deny that the words set out by Christensen in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim, or the words taken in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article, were made with knowledge of falsity of the words either with regard to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words or with regard to the innuendos as alleged in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claim, or at all.
14. The Defendants deny that the words set out by Christensen in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim or the words in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article were published without regard to the truth, or were published in a manner that was reckless as to their truth.
Fair comment
15. In the alternative, to the extent the words complained of in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim, or the words in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article, in their ordinary and natural meaning meant and were understood to bear the meanings set out in subparagraphs 6(a) to (f) of the Statement of Claim or any defamatory meaning, and to the extent that the words in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim contain innuendo, as alleged in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants state that the words complained of were fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely,
- 4 -
the involvement of named individuals with a province-wide non-profit organization known as The Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society, or the views of Christensen related to youth and sexuality, and are based on the following facts:
(a) The Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society (hereinafter
“ECMAS”) is a non-profit corporation incorporated April 14th, 1994 and
has an Edmonton chapter;
(b) Some persons involved with ECMAS have been falsely accused of
sexually abusing children;
(c) Christensen has been involved with the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS;
(d) Christensen has attended support group meetings of the Edmonton chapter
of ECMAS;
(e) On March 25, 2001, the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS considered a
motion to suspend Christensen from the group for three months to
investigate whether Christensen’s views conflicted with the guiding
principles and policies of ECMAS;
(f) Christensen has written and had published a book titled Pornography: The
Other Side;
(g) In his book Pornography: The Other Side, Christensen included a section
titled “Sex and Young People”. A copy of this section is attached as
Schedule “A” to this Statement of Defence, and the Defendants will rely
on this section in its entirety;
- 5 -
(h) Louise Malefant is a community activist who has been involved with the
Edmonton chapter of ECMAS;
(i) Louise Malefant accepted an invitation from Christensen to move from
Winnipeg to Edmonton to work with divorced parents;
(j) Christensen paid Louise Malefant a salary;
(k) [Tim] Adams was disbarred by the Law Society of Alberta and plead guilty to the indictable criminal offence of sexual exploitation of a minor;
(1) [Tim] Adams has been involved with the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS and
attended support group meetings of the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS;
(m) On March 12, 2001, the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS elected [Tim]
Adams as vice-president;
(n) On March 25, 2001, the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS voted to accept the
resignation of [Tim] Adams from the position of vice-president;
(o) On March 25, 2001, the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS voted down
a motion to eject [Tim] Adams from the group;
(p) In late March 2001, the board of directors of the Calgary chapter of
ECMAS resigned and disassociated itself from the ECMAS trade name;
(q) The Edmonton chapter of ECMAS support group meetings begin with a
disclaimer that the group is not offering legal advice;
-6-
(r) [Tim] Adams has handed out business cards at support group meetings of the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS. The business cards of [Tim] Adams included the designation LL.B.;
(s) [Tim] Adams has obtained clients for his paralegal business “Affordable Paralegal Services” who are persons involved with ECMAS;
(t) Christensen has recommended to some members of ECMAS on a number of occasions that they retain [Tim] Adams to provide counsel with regard to family law matters in place of their existing legal counsel.
16. Insofar as the words complained of in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim, or the words in the context of the article as a whole, or any of the words in the article, in their ordinary and natural meaning meant and were understood to bear the meanings set out in subparagraphs 6(a) to (f) of the Statement of Claim, and to the extent that the words in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Statement of Claim contain innuendo, as alleged in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claim, or at all, and insofar as any of the aforementioned words contain expressions of opinion, those expressions of opinion are fair comment, made in good faith and without malice on the facts which are matters of public interest.
17. Further the Defendants state that the following words from the article, show the fairness and good faith employed by the Defendants in publishing the article, and are an answer to the substance of the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim, “According to Prof. Christensen who neither condones nor advocates inter-generational sex”. The Defendants requested that Christensen answer a list of 13 questions related to matters material to the article and Christensen did not answer the questions.
-7-
Qualified Privilege
18. In the further alternative, the circumstances surrounding the activities of the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS, the involvement of named and unnamed individuals with the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS, and the views of Christensen regarding youth and sexuality, were at all material times matters of social and moral concern, including matters of interest to parents and children, about which the public has an ongoing interest in being informed and the Defendants had a corresponding social and moral duty to inform their readers. The publication of the article, and the statement allegedly made by Laframboise as set out in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, which statement or words to that effect Laframboise denies making, are protected by qualified privilege based on the Defendants’ social and moral duty to inform their readers regarding matters of social and moral concern.
19. In the further alternative, the circumstances surrounding the activities of the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS, the involvement of named and unnamed individuals with the Edmonton chapter of ECMAS, and the views of Christensen regarding youth and sexuality, were at all material times matters of real and bona fide public interest about which the public has an ongoing interest in being informed and the Defendants had a corresponding professional and public duty to inform their readers. [(Recall that not even Edmonton news people would--or did--make a news story of ECMAS and me. So it would follow from this that the Edmonton Journal and other news outlets were derelict in carrying out that duty.) The duty claimed
here is incompatible with the admission that follows, however:] [Next] The publication of the article, and the statement allegedly made by Laframboise as set out in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, which statement or words to that effect Laframboise denies making, are protected by qualified privilege based on the Defendants’ duty to inform their readers regarding matters of public interest and importance.
20. Based on information and documentation obtained from various persons, the truth of which the Defendants reasonably relied upon, the Defendants published the words complained of in the article, and the statement allegedly made by Laframboise as set out in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim, which statement or words to that effect Laframboise denies making, and in so relying and publishing the aforementioned words, the Defendants state that they
- 8 -
acted reasonably and responsibly and without malice to inform their readers about matters of public interest and importance.
21. In the further alternative, because of and by virtue of s. 2(b) and 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication is constitutionally guaranteed to the Defendants. The words complained of:
(a) consist of a report on matters of public interest; and
(b) were published without malice and without knowledge of falsity or
inaccuracy;
and in the circumstances the Defendants enjoyed a constitutional liberty to publish the
words.
Opportunity to Comment
22. The Defendants requested Christensen to answer questions and provide comment, but Christensen declined some of these opportunities.
No Damages
23. Christensen has suffered no damages, or alternatively if Christensen has suffered damage, which is not admitted, the damages claimed are excessive or were caused solely or partially by the actions of Christensen or his agent, including (both before and after the publication of the article) an e-mail campaign and press releases which, while malicious and untrue, brought the issues of Christensen’s circumstances to the attention of many who may not have
- 9 -
read the impugned article in The National Post, or to those who may not otherwise have focussed inordinately on the article in the newspaper.
24. The Defendants deny that they acted deliberately with express malice, or malice, or with any intent to mislead and further deny that their conduct toward Christensen has been highhanded or reckless to support any award of aggravated or punitive damages as claimed in paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim, or at all.
25. Further, or in the alternative, Christensen has failed or refused to take any, or alternatively any reasonable steps to mitigate any damages he has suffered, which damages are not admitted, and in particular Christensen did refuse to answer questions provided to Christensen.
26. In the event that the Defendants, or any Defendant, is liable to Christensen, which is not admitted, nothing in the acts or conduct of the Defendants entitles Christensen to an award of solicitor-client costs.
WHEREFORE ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS pray that the within action be dismissed with costs on a solicitor and own client basis, or in the alternative, that any amount awarded in favour of the Defendants pursuant to the Counterclaim filed herewith be set-off against any amount otherwise awarded in favour of Christensen.
- 10 -
AND BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
(Defendants)
- and -
FERREL CHRISTENSEN
Defendant by Counterclaim
(Plaintiff)
COUNTERCLAIM
27. On March 22, 2001 (three weeks prior to the publication of the article), Christensen did send an e-mail to Laframboise and at least one other person, in which e-mail Christensen falsely and maliciously published the following defamatory words about the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim:
“You have no idea of the harm you are about to do.”
“If you care anything about journalistic integrity, if you care anything about whether the movement in Edmonton is destroyed, you will hold off until you hear the other side of the story.”
28. On March 24, 2001 (three weeks prior to the publication of the article), Christensen did send an e-mail to Laframboise and at least thirteen other persons, in which e-mail Christensen falsely and maliciously published the following defamatory words about the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim:
“None of this is good faith, much less honest journalistic investigation.”
“Even your agreement to delay action beyond the planned publishing date of March 24 was not about getting more evidence for making up or changing your mind; it was closer to blackmail. Blackmail to what end? Forcing me to leave the movement I have served for 15 years. (If reports from the people
—11—
you have talked to are correct, you may have already slandered me,
suggesting that I condoned pedophilia ...“
“You used to be a decent person, Donna. What happened?”
29. On March 25,2001 (three weeks prior to the publication of the article), Christensen did send a letter and attachment, to Kenneth Whyte, Editor-in-Chief of The National Post newspaper, and others, in which letter and attachment, Christensen falsely and maliciously published the following defamatory words about the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim:
“I began to worry about the various ways your columnist might attempt to stay back from the edge of libel while still seriously misleading readers about me and my views.” [The word “columnist” was meant and understood to mean Donna Laframboise.]
“... should you publish an attack on me,...” [The word “you” was meant and understood to mean either Donna Laframboise, The National Post Company, or both.]
“Knowing in advance the type of irrational reasoning which led her, allegedly to suggest to my associates that I condone pedophilia ... [The word “her” was meant and understood to mean Donna Laframboise.]
30. The attachment to the March 25, 2001 letter sent by Christensen to Kenneth Whyte and others and titled “Moral fervour without accurate knowledge does evil” is in its entirety defamatory of the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim, and without limitation, the following words are, either alone, or in the context of the whole of the attachment, defamatory of the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim:
“My scientific and moral integrity have been called into question in the pages of this newspaper by columnist Donna Laframboise. There is not space here to counter the effects of her carefully culled snippets, but readers must be told there is far, far more to the story.” [The word “newspaper” is meant or understood to mean The National Post newspaper.]
“Ms. Lafranitboise herself has not put in such amounts of study of this huge corpus. She is reacting out of moral fervour.”
- 12-
“Honors! Drive the heresy-promoting scientists from their jobs! Don’t let them be around children" Ms. Laframboise used threats of exposing me in her colunm, made earlier to a volunteer group I have long worked with, in an attempt to get them to expel me, (Even though my views on sexuality have never been taught to anyone connected with the group.) Ms. Laframboise has herself spoken up for persons convicted of sex abuse; should others infer from this that she is soft on pedophilia? Because of the widespread fears, no doubt many have done so, and maybe her attack on me is a defense mechanism to prove she is not.”
“There is absolutely no scientific doubt about the truth of this. Huge amounts of accumulated evidence prove it though Ms. Laframboise will evidently not
reveal the evidence I have given.”
“(Ms. Laframboise’s close collaborator in preparing this attack on me is tightly allied with a certain far-right-wing antihomosexual propagandist. Will Ms. Laframboise use her column to expose the website her collaborator shares with him?)”
“Irrational feelings about sex have all too often done more evil than sex abuse itself I will not be silenced by your columnist’s vicious attack.”
31. On April 3,2001 (two weeks prior to the publication of the article), Christensen did publish a “PRESS RELEASE” to the Men’s Educational Support Association and others in which Christensen falsely and maliciously published the following defamatory words about the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: [See the fourth paragraph below.] ------>
“Much more importantly, her claim of inappropriateness is totally unfounded, based on gross misinterpretation on her part. Indeed it was reported to me that Ms. Laframboise has, in telephone conversations, said and insinuated specific false claims about my views ... ” [The word “her” is meant and understood to mean Laframboise.]
“I feel compelled to raise some questions about the methods and motives of Ms. Laframboise herself.”
“Surely, failure to disclose these relevant matters raises questions about the proper relationship between a joumalist and her information sources.” [The word “her” is meant and understood to mean Laframboise.]
“A second piece of undisclosed information is Ms. Laframboise’s own role in influencing the actions of ECMAS leaders regarding Mr. Adams and me.
[Now go to the third paragraph below.] ------>
- 13 -
Her article (March 30, “Dispute erupts...”) clearly indicates that the reaction within ECMAS, including the resignation of the Calgary Board, was autonomous. In fact, ECMAS-Calgary did not even approach the Edmonton group about the matter until contacted by Ms. Laframboise. She told them an article by her exposing Mr. Adams and me was scheduled for publication that very weekend (March 24). This is not exactly William Randolph Hearst inciting Spanish-American War so he could have lurid stories for his newspapers, but the same principle of journalistic integrity is at stake.”
“...This also speaks volumes about her level of impartiality.” [The word “her” is meant and understood to mean Laframboise.]
----->
“To repeat, this is creating the news, not just reporting it.” [Referring to the activities of Laframboise, the National Post Company, or both.] [Back]
“This is, one would think, a major reason why there are principles of journalistic ethics. I can only hope that other journalists take such principles seriously enough to inquire into Ms. Laframboise’s behavior in this matter.”
32. On April 9, 2001 (one week prior to the publication of the article), Christensen did send an e-mail, or e-mails to Doug Pierozinski, in which e-mail, or e-mails Christensen falsely and maliciously published the following defamatory words about the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim:
“But some of us have found out the hard way that she has a dark and nasty side.” [The word “she” is meant and understood to mean Laftamboise.]
“For now, will you at least acknowledge that such behaviour, IF engaged in by her or anyone else, would be contemptible.” [The word “her” is meant and understood to mean Laframboise.]
33. The words published by Christensen in paragraphs 27 to 32 in this Counterclaim are in their natural and ordinary meaning defamatory of Laframboise, the National Post Company or both, in that the words were intended and understood to mean, any or all of the following: [To see how the claims below allegedly relate to my words, one must compare their order and content with those in their paragraphs 27-32, and compare both with my documents themselves.] ---->
(a) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim intended to cause harm by writing and publishing the article;
(b) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim did not care about journalistic integrity;
[Continue to top of p. 15] ---->
- 14 -
(c) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim made no attempts to “hear the other side
of the story”;
(d) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim did not act in good faith or conduct an
honest journalistic investigation;
(e) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim used blackmail to force Christensen to
leave a movement he had worked with for 15 years;
(f) Laframboise may have slandered Christensen prior to the publication of
the article, by suggesting that he condoned pedophilia;
(g) Laframboise is not a decent person;
(h) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim intended to publish an attack on
Christensen;
(i) Laframboise was guilty of irrational reasoning;
(j) Laframboise had alleged to the associates of Christensen that Christensen
condoned pedophilia;
(k) Laframboise (in writing the article) was reacting out of moral fervour;
(1) Laframboise made threats to Christensen of exposing him in her column in
order to get him expelled from a volunteer group;
(m) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim would not reveal evidence provided to
them by Christensen;
- 15 -
(n) Laframboise collaborated with a certain far-right-wing anti-homosexual
propagandist; ---->
(o) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim intended to publish a vicious attack on Christensen;
(p) Laftarnboise had made gross misrepresentations about Christensen during her preparation of the article and insinuated specific false claims about the views of Christensen to others during telephone conversations;
(q) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim had influenced the leadership of ECMAS prior to the publication of the article;
(r) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim were not impartial in writing and preparing to publish the article;
(s) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim created news and were not just reporting news; ---->
(t) There should be an inquiry into the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim's journalistic ethics and principles;
(u) Laframboise had a dark and nasty side and that her behaviour was contemptible;
(v) Any two or more of the foregoing.
34. In the alternative, the defamatory words set out in paragraphs 27 to 32 of this Counterclaim contain false and implied defamatory meanings or defamatory innuendoes as set out above in paragraph 33.
- 16 -
35. Further, the defamatory words, contain false and implied defamatory meanings or defamatory innuendoes, particulars of which include:
(a) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim, in writing and preparing to publish the article, were engaged in a witch-hunt, were guilty of irrational beliefs, fears, hysteria, false accusations, overreaction, and anti-sexual attitudes. And, further that the views of the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim could increase psychological harm to others, cause child abuse and suicide;
---->
(b) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim deliberately and intentionally wrote and prepared to publish the article in order to cause harm to Christensen;
(c) Laframboise supports persons convicted of sexual abuse and that she approves of pedophilia;
(d) Laframboise holds extreme right-wing views and anti-homosexual views;
---->
(e) Laframboise deliberately collaborated with others to attack Christensen by writing and preparing to publish the article;
(f) Laframboise used inappropriate methods and had inappropriate motives in writing and preparing to publish the article;
(g) The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim intentionally incited the events about which they intended to write and publish in the article so that they could have lurid stories for the National Post newspaper; [Back]
(h) Laframboise lacks journalistic ethics and principles;
-17-
(i) The behaviour of Laframboise in writing and preparing to publish the article was contemptible;
(j) Any two of more of the foregoing.
36. The defamatory statements of Christensen (all made prior to the publication of the article) were made deliberately, with malice, with intent to mislead and in a manner calculated to disparage the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim in their personal and professional reputation. As a result, the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim have suffered public humiliation, distress, and serious harm to their personal and professional reputations.
37. The defamatory statements were made with express malice and in a reckless manner, which has aggravated the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim and which justifies the awarding of both aggravated and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFFS (BY COUNTERCLAIM) CLAIM AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT (BY COUNTERCLAIM):
(a) general damages, including aggravated damages, of $500,000.00;
(b) punitive or exemplary damages of $500,000.00;
(c) interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A, 1984, chapter J-0.5, and including and incorporating all amendments thereto;.
(d) costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis;
(e) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.
- 18-
DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this 2nd day of October, 2001 and FILED BY MESSRS. REYNOLDS, MIRTH, RICHARDS & FARMER, Banisters & Solicitors, 3200, Manulife Place, 10180 - 101 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3W8, solicitors for the Defendants, whose address for service in this action is in care of the said solicitors.
109675-1.WPD;Oct/O2/Ol