IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF
ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
ACTION NO.
0103 14569
BETWEEN:
THE
NATIONAL POST COMPANY and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
PLAINTIFFS BY
COUNTERCLAIM
(Defendants)
- and
-
FERREL
CHRISTENSEN
DEFENDANT
BYCOUNTERCLAIM
(Plaintiff)
1. The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
repeat the allegations in the Statement of Defence and
Counterclaim.
2. The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
deny each allegation and statement in the Statement
of Defence to Counterclaim, save
and insofar as the Statement of Defence to Counterclaim
consists of admissions.
Reply to Defence of
Justification
3. In reply to the plea of
justification contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the
Defence to Counterclaim:
a. the Defendant by Counterclaim
(hereinafter referred to as “Ferrel Christensen”) was actuated by express
malice in filing the plea of justification;
128006-1
.WPD;Feb/05/02
- 2 -
b.
the plea of justification constitutes a republication of the defamation
which increases the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim; or
c. the material facts pleaded by Ferrel
Christensen are false, or alternatively, they do not in fact or in law afford a
foundation for the plea of justification.
4. Further, and specifically in
reply to the plea of qualified privilege contained in
paragraph
20 of the Statement of Defence to Counterclaim:
a. the
words complained of in the Counterclaim were not published on an occasion of
qualified privilege; or
b. alternatively, the limits or duty of
interest were exceeded; or
c. alternatively, the expression went beyond what was germane
and reasonably appropriate; or
d. alternatively, the defamatory
expression was communicated to those without proper reciprocal interest in
receiving it, the duty-interest relationship was therefore breached, and the
privilege was lost
and Ferrel Christensen was
actuated by express or actual malice in publishing the words
complained of in the
Counterclaim.
5. Further, and specifically
in reply to paragraph 20 of the Statement of Defence to
Counterclaim, Ferrel Christensen
was actuated by express malice in publishing the Words.
Particulars of Ferrel
Christensen’s express malice or actual malice include:
a. Ferrel Christensen intended to inflict
permanent and lasting injury on the
Plaintiffs by
Counterclaim by exposing them to ridicule, hatred or contempt through the
communication of defamatory remarks including defamatory remarks regarding the
Plaintiffs by Counterclaim’s lack of journalistic ethics and other behaviours
related to the profession or business of the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim;
12806-1.WPD;Feb/05/02
- 3 -
b. Ferrel Christensen knew that the words
were false, or alternatively, Ferrel Christensen published the words
recklessly, not caring whether they were true or false;
c. Ferrel Christensen acted out of gross and
unreasoning prejudice, vindictiveness and intemperance, or in the heat of
unreasoning anger;
d. Ferrel Christensen has not retracted or
apologized for the Words;
e. Ferrel Christensen accused the Plaintiffs
by Counterclaim of having engaged in unlawful and criminal conduct, including;
defamation, blackmail, and uttering threats; or
f. any two or more of the foregoing.
Reply to Defence of Fair Comment
6. Further, and specifically in
reply to the plea of fair comment contained in paragraph
21 of the Statement of Defence
to Counterclaim the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim say that the false,
malicious and defamatory words
and statements, as alleged in the Statement of Defence to
Counterclaim:
a. were statements of fact, not comments; or
b. imputed corrupt or dishonourable motives
to the Plaintiffs by Counterclaim, and were not warranted by facts truly stated
or referred to.
7. Further, and in the
alternative, and specifically in reply to the plea of fair comment
contained in paragraph 21 of the
Statement of Defence to Counterclaim, if the words were
comment, which is not admitted,
but denied:
a. the comment was based on false facts
stated in the respective publication; and
b. alternatively, the facts, stated or
understood, were not sufficient to support the comments so as to make any of
them fair.
128006-1.WPD;Feb/05/02
- 4 -
8. Further, and in the
alternative, and specifically in reply to the plea of fair comment
contained in paragraph 21 of the
Statement of Defence to Counterclaim, the Plaintiffs by
Counterclaim say that Ferrel
Christensen was actuated by express malice in publishing the
words. Particulars of Ferrel
Christensen’s express malice are set out in paragraph 5 in this Reply
to Statement of Defence to
Counterclaim.
9. Further, and specifically in
reply to paragraphs 13, 14,15 and 16 of the Statement of
Defence to Counterclaim,
the allegations contained therein do not state a defence known to the
law nor are they relevant
to a lawful determination of the general, special, aggravated, punitive
or exemplary damages to
which the Plaintiffs are entitled.
DATED at the
City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this ______ day of
February, 2002 and DELIVERED BY
Messrs. Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer, Banisters
and Solicitors, 3200 Manulife
Place, 10180-101 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3W8, solicitors
for the Plaintiffs By
Counterclaim, whose address for service is in care of the said solicitors.
128006-1.WPD;Feb/O5/02