International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213 v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. (The Vancouver Sun)

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213 v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. (The Vancouver Sun)

The historical rule requiring defendants in defamation actions to plead particulars with specificity remains applicable and Rule 26(1) does not abrogate it; however, where defendants supply sufficiently specific particulars about alleged misconduct, courts must order production of documents that are relevant to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 BCCA 44
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213; Defendant / Respondent: Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. (The Vancouver Sun); Defendant / Respondent: Harvey Enchin; Defendant / Respondent: canada.com New Media Inc.; Appellant / Defendant: Philip Hochstein; Appellant / Defendant: Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Appeal to Court of Appeal Concerning Discovery/production Order (motion From Chambers Judge)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; production ordered in part; no costs awarded to either side
Legal Topics
Particulars, Production of Documents, Justification and Fair Comment, Rolled Up Plea, Rule 26(1) Disclosure
Source Language
english
Defamation Civil Procedure Discovery Labour Law Particulars Production of Documents Justification and Fair Comment Rolled Up Plea +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213

Plaintiff / Respondent

Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. (The Vancouver Sun)

Defendant / Respondent

Harvey Enchin

Defendant / Respondent

canada.com New Media Inc.

Defendant / Respondent

Philip Hochstein

Appellant / Defendant

Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Appeal to Court of Appeal Concerning Discovery/production Order (motion From Chambers Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 26(1) broader disclosure regime displaces historical particularity requirement in defamation actions
  2. 2 Whether the particulars supplied by the defendants were sufficiently specific to require production of contested documents
  3. 3 What categories of documents relating to a union job‑targeting program are relevant and discoverable in a defamation action

Ratio Decidendi

The historical rule requiring defendants in defamation actions to plead particulars with specificity remains applicable and Rule 26(1) does not abrogate it; however, where defendants supply sufficiently specific particulars about alleged misconduct, courts must order production of documents that are relevant to those particulars. Here the particulars were sufficiently specific to require production of documents concerning amounts held in the job‑targeting fund, annual expenditures and correspondence concerning applications, percentages/surcharges and related communications; broader requests were refused as fishing expeditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; production ordered in part; no costs awarded to either side

Orders

  • Order production of documents relating to amounts held in the job‑targeting fund and annual expenditures of the program (item (c) as to fund amounts and expenditures)
  • Order production of correspondence and related documents concerning applications for assistance from the job‑targeting program, percentage of union dues directed to the program, and any special surcharges or levies assessed to fund the program (item (d))