IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
ACTION NO. 0103 14569
THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE
PLAINTIFFS BY COUNTERCLAIM
- and -
1. The Plaintiffs by Counterclaim repeat the allegations in the Statement of Defence and
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;
- 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;
- 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
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.
- 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.