REPORTED DECISIONS

The action arose from a CTV Consumer Watch report broadcast on television and republished through CTV’s website and Facebook. Following a multi-day trial, the Court held that the report conveyed a false defamatory meaning that the plaintiffs did not honour their representations, made misrepresentations and were untrustworthy.

Although the individual facts reported were true, the Court found that the order of presentation was inaccurate and important information had been omitted. Together, the presentation and omissions produced a defamatory meaning that was not true. The Court rejected the defence of responsible communication for that meaning, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in verifying and accurately presenting the allegation.

The decision also addresses defamation by implication or omission, responsible communication on matters of public interest, notice to broadcasters under Alberta’s Defamation Act, corporate reputational harm and the assessment of general damages.

The result was mixed. Other alleged defamatory meanings were held to be justified or protected by fair comment, and claims for specific economic losses and punitive damages were not allowed. The plaintiffs’ pending appeal challenges portions of the liability findings and damages assessment.

The Court considered how hearsay and prior inconsistent statements should be treated on summary judgment and summary dismissal applications. It held that the Applications Judge had incorrectly stated the law governing hearsay evidence. The Court admitted important prior statements because the person who made them was available for cross-examination, providing sufficient procedural reliability.

The Court also held that conflicting evidence requiring credibility findings could not fairly be resolved on the written record. It found a genuine issue requiring trial, set aside the summary dismissal and recognized Liberty Land as the substantially successful party for costs.

Subsequent Alberta decisions have cited Liberty Land. In O’Donoghue v Fluid Energy Group Ltd, 2026 ABKB 428, the Court referred expressly to “the test articulated in Liberty” when considering hearsay on a summary judgment application.

The respondent applied to quash Poffenroth Agri’s appeal on the basis that the decision under appeal was interlocutory and could not be appealed without leave. Poffenroth Agri maintained that it had an appeal as of right or, alternatively, asked the Court to grant leave retroactively.

The Court determined that leave was required but accepted Poffenroth Agri’s alternative position. It dismissed the application to quash and granted leave to appeal nunc pro tunc. In doing so, the Court found that the proposed appeal had sufficient merit and raised questions of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal. Those questions concerning inherent jurisdiction, abuse of process and judicial comity were found to transcend the circumstances of the particular dispute.

The decision establishes a detailed framework for distinguishing final decisions from interlocutory decisions and for determining when leave to appeal may be granted nunc pro tunc. It has subsequently been applied repeatedly by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, including in decisions concerning civil litigation, estates, professional discipline, Indigenous claims, foreclosure proceedings and Anton Piller orders.