Gouin v. White, 2013 ABQB 332

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Gouin v. White, 2013 ABQB 332 Date: 20130613 Docket: 1003 02702; 1003 12420 Registry: Edmonton Between: Roger Gouin and Martin Gouin Plaintiffs - and - Elaine White and World Solutions

(2004) Inc. and Cullen Johnson and Johnson Investigations Inc. Defendants _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Defendants in two separate, but related, actions have been noted in default after their respective defences were struck. The Plaintiffs now seek judgment against the Defendants, without notice, under Rule 3.37 of the Rules of Court. The central issue to be determined on these applications is what judgment ought to be granted against the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek $75,000.00 general damages, $25,000.00 punitive damages, and solicitor client costs as against each Defendant for defamation. [ 2 ] Roger Gouin ("Roger") and Martin Gouin ("Martin") (collectively, the "Plaintiffs) commenced the following two related actions:

(

a) Court File No. 1003 02702 against Elaine White ("White") and World Solutions

(2004) Inc. ("World Solutions"); and (

b) Court File No. 1003 12420 against Cullen Johnson ("Johnson") and Johnson Investigations Inc. ("Johnson Investigations"). [ 3 ] White, World Solutions, Johnson, and Johnson Investigations are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Defendants".

Admissions from the Statement of Claim [ 4 ] Pursuant to TLA Food Services Ltd. v. 1144707 Alberta Ltd. , 2011 ABQB 550 at paras. 18 and 24 , White and World Solutions are deemed to have admitted the allegations in the Amended Statement of Claim filed in that action (the "Amended SOC"), and Johnson and Johnson Investigations are deemed to have admitted the allegations in the Statement of Claim filed in that action (the "SOC"). [ 5 ] The admissions made by the Defendants are summarized below with reference to paragraph numbers corresponding to the relevant commencement document. (

i) Defamatory Statements (

a) White and Johnson are residents of Toronto, Ontario. White is the sole shareholder, director, and directing mind of World Solutions. Johnson is the sole shareholder, director, and directing mind of Johnson Investigations [paras. 2 and 3 of Amended SOC; paras. 2 and 3 of SOC] (

b) The Defendants have, or have caused to be, published and disseminated the following statements regarding the Plaintiffs (the "Defamatory Statements"): (

i) In or about October 2004, the Defendants indicated to Renee Gouin-Katz ("Katz") and Elaine Busch ("Busch"), either directly or through their agent, words to the effect that the Plaintiffs transferred millions of dollars offshore through hundreds of bank accounts; and (ii) In or about June 2006, the Defendants indicated to Ms. Gouin-Katz and Ms. Busch, either directly or through their agent, that the Plaintiffs caused 99 bank accounts to be set up on behalf of themselves and corporations controlled by them, in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere "offshore", and have embarked upon a process of transferring millions of dollars to these accounts. [para. 4 of Amended SOC; para. 4 of SOC] (

c) On February 4, 2005, the Defamatory Statements were published in a Statement of Claim filed on behalf of Katz and Busch, commencing Action No. 0503 02298 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton (the "Katz-Busch Action"). [para. 6 of Amended SOC; para. 6 of SOC] (

d) On February 10, 2005, the Defamatory Statements were published in the Edmonton Journal newspaper. [para. 7 of Amended SOC; para. 7 of SOC] (

e) In the usual and ordinary meaning of the words used, the Defamatory Statements were intended by the Defendants and were understood by the recipients thereof, to mean that the Plaintiffs were untrustworthy, dishonest, underhanded and unethical. [para. 8 of Amended SOC; para. 8 of SOC] (

f) The Defamatory Statements were false and were made by the Defendants with malice and with the deliberate intention of

discrediting the financial and personal reputations of the Plaintiffs, and to expose the Plaintiffs to loss of reputation, financial loss, distress and embarrassment. [para. 9 of Amended SOC; para. 9 of SOC] (

g) As a result of the Defamatory Statements and their publication: (

i) the Plaintiffs have been exposed to irreparable harm, odium, contempt, ridicule, and embarrassment; (

i) the Plaintiffs have been lowered in the estimation of others; and (ii) the Plaintiffs have suffered financial loss, damage and inconvenience. [para. 10 of Amended SOC; para. 10 of SOC] (

h) Further, the Defamatory Statements were made in a reckless and malicious manner and are deserving of an award of punitive or exemplary damages. [para. 11 of Amended SOC; para. 11 of SOC] (ii) Wrongful Procurement of Financial Information (

a) On January 16, 17, 18, 21, and 24, 2008, and February 21, and 25, 2008, White, or someone acting on the behalf of, and at the direction of, White or World Solutions (the "Caller"), contacted the Bank of Nova Scotia by telephone (collectively the "Calls"). (

b) During the Calls: (

i) the Caller impersonated Sarah Gouin, Martin's spouse; (ii) the Caller made general inquiries regarding the finances of various companies owned and operated by the Plaintiffs; and (iii) the Caller made inquiries regarding specific financial transactions associated with companies owned and operated by the Plaintiffs. [para. 12 of Amended SOC] (

c) During the Calls, and thereafter by facsimile sent March 5, 2008, certain financial information belonging to the companies owned and operated by the Plaintiffs was provided to the Caller. [para. 13 of Amended SOC] (

d) This direct and intentional interference with the Plaintiffs' financial information without the Plaintiffs' consent amounts to a trespass. It further constitutes theft, deceit, and an invasion of privacy for which White and World Solutions are liable. [para. 14 of Amended SOC] B. Affidavit Evidence [ 6 ] Affidavits sworn by each of the Plaintiffs were filed in support of the within applications. The evidence summarized below is derived from those Affidavits: (

a) Roger (1950) and Martin (1961) were both born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta. Their parents, Ivan Gouin ("Ivan") and Carol Gouin, had three other children as well: Katz, Busch, and Colette Gouin ("Colette").

(

b) During his lifetime, Ivan incorporated a number of Alberta companies, including, but not limited to: (

i) in 1953, a road building business, most commonly known as North American Road Ltd. ("Road"); and (ii) in 1969, a construction business known as North American Construction Ltd. ("Construction"). Roger's Business Background (

c) In 1966, Roger began working casually for Road and Construction and for what would eventually become known as North American Construction Group (collectively, the "Construction Companies"). (

d) Roger graduated from an Edmonton highschool in February of 1970. Thereafter, he completed numerous educational courses through various extension programs and faculties. (

e) In 1971, Roger began working fulltime for the Construction Companies; over time, he became increasingly involved in the management of their operations. (

f) In 1980, Ivan, at age 64, planned and implemented an estate freeze and reorganization of his various corporate interests, including those held in Road and Construction (the "Estate Freeze and Reorganization"). (

g) As a result of the Estate Freeze and Reorganization: (

i) Ivan was issued preferred shares in various businesses, the redemptions of which resulted in payments to him, over time, exceeding an aggregate of $10 million; and (ii) Roger and Martin each acquired half of the equity growth of the businesses. (

h) After the Estate Freeze and Reorganization, Roger and Martin struggled to operate, maintain, and grow the Construction Companies. The 1980s presented particularly difficult economic times. In fact, it was not until after 1990 that their equity shares gained any material value. (

i) Roger worked in the Construction Companies until November, 2003 when Roger and Martin sold their interests in the businesses (the "Sale"). Roger's Personal Life (

j) Roger married Peggy Dubensky in 1971. Thereafter, they had two daughters whom they raised in the City of Edmonton. (

k) Both Roger and Peggy, a lawyer practicing in the City of Edmonton, have always been very actively involved in the Edmonton community. (

l) Roger has been a member of the following Boards, among others: Edmonton Petroleum Club, Edmonton Art Gallery, Royal Mayfair Golf & Country Club, University Hospital Foundation, and Mental Health Foundation. He was also the co-chair of the Edmonton Homeless Commission: Edmonton's 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness.

(

m) Roger has been an active member of the following organizations: Young Presidents' Organization, World Presidents' Organization, Prairie Road Builders' Association, and Canadian Construction Association. (

n) Currently, Roger is co-Chair of the Alumni of University Hospital Foundation. He is also actively involved in raising funds for, and supporting, dozens of community causes, including: the United Way, the Cross Cancer Institute, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, and the Stollery Children's Hospital. (

o) To date, Roger remains a resident of the City of Edmonton. Martin's Business Background (

p) In the summer of 1979, at the age of 17, Martin worked for Road in the shop and then at a camp job at Kananaskis. In November of 1979, he returned to work in Edmonton operating a pilot truck and piloting equipment until December. Thereafter, beginning in the Spring of 1980, he operated a scraper and dozer at a Road job in the Keep Hills area. (

q) In the Fall of 1980, Martin began full-time studies at the University of Alberta. During the summers of 1981 and 1982, however, he worked for Road both on job sites and in the shop. (

r) In the Spring of 1983, Martin began full-time employment with Road. Over the next 20 years, he worked for the Construction Companies. In 1995, he became President and CEO of the Construction Companies. (

s) Martin worked in the Construction Companies until the Sale in November of 2003. Martin's Personal Life (

t) Martin married Sarah Gouin in 1987. They raised four children in the City of Edmonton. (

u) Martin was a member of the Young Entrepreneur's Organization Edmonton chapter, serving over the years as communication, membership, and education chairs, before becoming

chapter chairman in 1996. Martin became a member of the Young President's Organization Northern Alberta

chapter after 2000; (

v) Over the years, Martin has assisted numerous charities throughout the Edmonton area and beyond, as well as providing scholarships and bursaries through the Sarah and Martin Gouin Family Funds administered by the Edmonton Community Foundation. Katz/Busch Litigation (

w) On February 4, 2005, the Katz/Busch Action was commenced by the filing of a Statement of Claim in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, naming as Defendants, Ivan, Roger, and Martin, and their various companies. (

x) The allegations in the Katz/Busch Action were numerous and varied. Essentially, the Plaintiffs alleged that a portion of the Sale proceeds belonged to them and Colette (who was not a party to the action), as a result of some trust interest they alleged to have had in the Construction Companies. (

y) One of the most offensive allegations in the Statement of Claim is found at paragraph 30. It reads as follows:

Following the Sale Transaction, the Gouin Sons have been using the Sale Proceeds for their own benefit to acquire other property and have caused portions of the Sale Proceeds, in amounts unknown to the Plaintiffs, to be transferred offshore. In particular, the Defendants Roger Gouin and Martin Gouin, both or either of them, have caused numerous bank accounts to be set up on behalf of themselves and corporations controlled by them, in the Cayman Islands, and have embarked upon a process of transferring monies to these accounts for the purpose, amongst other things, of defeating the interests of the Plaintiffs. Republication in the Edmonton Journal (

z) On February 10, 2005, the Edmonton Journal published an

article detailing the allegations made in the Statement of Claim. In relation to the alleged "offshore accounts", the

article reiterated, in part, paragraph 30 of the Statement of Claim. Further Republication (aa) At all material times, Roger and Martin and their respective spouses engaged in social circles similar to that of Katz and her husband. When the commencement of the Katz/Busch Action was published in the Edmonton Journal, particularly the allegations pertaining to offshore accounts, many of their friends and acquaintances read about the same.

In addition, many people in and around the Edmonton area, including friends, and colleagues, and family members of Roger and Martin, heard about these alleged offshore accounts from Katz and Busch and/or from people Katz and Busch had told. [Roger's Affidavit, paras. 22 and 23; Martin's Affidavit, paras 14 and 15 ] (bb) Roger and Martin are convinced that without the false information provided by the Defendants, Katz and Busch would not have commenced the Katz/Busch Action, and the Defamatory Statements would not have been published in the Edmonton Journal or repeated throughout the Edmonton community.

It was the initial publication by the Defendants to Katz and Busch that led to the commencement of the Katz/Busch Action and the republication of the Defamatory Statements. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 31; Martin's Affidavit, para. 16] KPMG Report and Discontinuance of the Katz/Busch Action (cc) Roger and Martin retained forensic experts from Toronto's KPMG office to investigate the offshore account allegations. (dd) On October 3, 2008, four years into the Katz/Busch Action, an application was filed on behalf of Roger and Martin to have the offshore accounts allegation in that action summarily dismissed.

In support of that application, a Notice of Motion was filed, together with an Affidavit sworn by John Beer of KPMG. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 24 and Exhibit "C"] (ee) The Affidavit of Mr. Beer attaches a report prepared by KPMG. The Report attaches a list, provided by Katz and Busch to Roger and Martin in the Katz/Busch Action, of 97 bank accounts at 43 different banks in Canada, Channel Islands, Grand Cayman, United States and Bahamas, into which monies were allegedly transferred by Roger and Martin.

The list specifically includes names and addresses of the 43 banks, bank account numbers and names of the account beneficiaries; the account type and dates when the accounts were opened or closed; and account balances and transfer of funds/activity into or out of the accounts. The KPMG Report describes KPMG's forensic investigation, including interviews conducted, inquiries made, contact with FINTRAC, etc. Of the 43 banks listed by Katz and Busch, 39 banks confirmed that the accounts alleged to exist did not, in fact, exist at all.

Two of the 43 banks refused to provide any information without a Court Order and two of the 43 banks simply did not respond to inquiries made. The KPMG Report ultimately concluded that the information provided by Katz and Busch was false. (ff) On February 1, 2010, six years after the Katz/Busch Action had been commenced, but before the

summary judgment application could be heard by the Court, Katz and Busch discontinued their action pursuant to an agreement with Roger and Martin. Pursuant to the agreement, Katz and Busch were responsible for paying their own legal fees, and Katz was responsible for paying 50% of all of the costs incurred by Roger and Martin in defending the Katz/Busch Action. The lawyers' fee portion of Roger and Martin's costs to be paid by Katz was to be calculated on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis. [Roger's Affidavit, paras. 25 and 26, Exhibit "D"] The Within Actions

(gg) Roger and Martin went to great lengths to serve the commencement documents filed in the within actions. After expending much time and effort, on February 2, 2011, applications were granted by this Court to substitutionally serve the Defendants via electronic mail. In support of those applications, a number of Affidavits were filed. In particular, Detective Barbara Hoath, Ontario Provincial Police, Investigation and Support Bureau, Anti-Rackets Branch, swore Affidavits [Exhibit "E" to Roger's Affidavit] deposing that: (

i) She was the lead investigator in a fraud investigation involving White and Johnson; (ii) On April 6, 2009, she arrested and charged White and Johnson for two counts of Fraud Over $5000. Both parties were released on a Promise to Appear and Undertaking by a Police Officer; (iii) On July 28, 2009, she further charged White with three counts of Fraud Over $5000 and Johnson with one count of Fraud Under $5000; (iv) On January 4, 2010, she spoke with the counsel for both White and Johnson and advised them that a further charge of Fraud would be laid against White and Johnson; (

v) Johnson and White failed to appear in the criminal proceedings against them in the Province of Ontario; (vi) Warrants for the arrest of Johnson and White had been issued and remained outstanding; and (vii) Johnson and White were known to have seasonal residence in Nassau, Bahamas; (hh) Attached to Roger's Affidavit as Exhibit "F" are copies of various newspaper reports pertaining to Johnson and White and their related allegedly criminal activity. (ii) Following service of the commencement documents filed in the within actions, the Defendants filed Statements of Defence. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 33] (jj) In White's Statement of Defence (paragraph 6), she admits to having provided certain information to a Mr.

Michael Fluker on behalf of the "Katz Group". The Katz Group is believed to be a company owned by Katz's husband. [Exhibit "G" to Roger's Affidavit]. (kk) Requests for assistance from Fluker with respect to this matter were made but were substantially refused. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 35] (ll) On September 19, 2011, this Court granted an Order in each of the within actions compelling the Defendants to serve a sworn Affidavit of Records on the Plaintiffs on or before October 19, 2011 and to pay costs to the Plaintiffs of $3,000.00 forthwith.

Those Orders were served upon Defendants' counsel on September 20, 2011. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 36] (mm) Effective September 27, 2011, counsel for the Defendants withdrew as counsel of record. No further counsel was ever heard from on behalf of the Defendants with respect to the within actions. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 37] (nn) The Defendants failed to comply with the terms of the September 19, 2011 Orders requiring the service of sworn Affidavits of Records.

As a result, by Orders dated December 8, 2011, the Statements of Defence of the Defendants were struck and the Clerk of the Court entered a Noting in Default in each of the within actions. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 38; Exhibit "H"]

Allegations Untrue (oo) Roger and Martin spent several years defending the specific allegations, made by Katz and Busch, regarding offshore accounts; [Roger's Affidavit, para. 39; Martin's Affidavit, para. 12] (pp) The information provided by the Defendants to Katz and Busch is completely false. Neither Roger nor Martin transferred any monies to any countries outside of Canada, on behalf of themselves or a corporation controlled by them.

Since 2003, aside from expenditures made in relation to vacations and other such ordinary matters, the only transfers of monies that they have made outside of Canada, on behalf of themselves or a corporation controlled by them, related to purchases of a home in California made by each of them.

Aside from one bank account that they each have in California, the balance of which never exceeded $25,000.00 USD, they have not caused any bank accounts to be set up outside of Canada on behalf of themselves or a corporation controlled by them; [Roger's Affidavit, para.40; Martin's Affidavit, para. 13] (qq) The falsity of the Defamatory Statements is substantiated by the KPMG report. Damages (rr) The publication by the Defendants regarding alleged offshore accounts held by Roger and Martin, and the republication of the same as aforesaid: (

i) was humiliating; (ii) caused Roger and Martin great personal fear and anxiety; (iii) created enormous personal stress for Roger and Martin; (iv) caused a loss of enjoyment of life; (

v) damaged the personal and business reputations of Roger and Martin; (vi) gave rise to unwanted, widespread interest in the personal, financial, and business affairs of Roger and Martin; (vii) caused Roger and Martin's colleagues, friends, and acquaintances to question their integrity and trustworthiness; and (viii) caused Roger and Martin's colleagues, friends, and acquaintances to think negatively of them. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 41; Martin's Affidavit, para. 17] (ss) Following the publication and republication of the Defamatory Statements, Roger and Martin felt growing disdain towards them and their respective families in the local community and in their business relationships. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 42; Martin's Affidavit, para. 18] (tt) The publication and republication of the Defamatory Statements resulted in a loss of investment, advisory, and/or involvement opportunities for each of Roger and Martin. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 43; Martin's Affidavit, para. 19]

(uu) The negative repercussions described above herein arose specifically as a result of the publication and republication of the Defamatory Statements regarding the offshore accounts, not just as a result of the commencement of the Katz/Busch Action generally. Roger and Martin's friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and the community as a whole, were aware that Roger and Martin had been actively running the Construction Companies for more than two decades with virtually no involvement whatsoever by Katz or Busch.

As such, the allegations made by Katz and Busch that they had an interest in the businesses were defensible, even on their face. Moreover, such allegations consisted of far less inflammatory allegations and innuendo. The severely offensive allegation, however, that they were hiding money offshore put the integrity and credibility of Roger and Martin in question and tainted the obvious and strong defences to the ownership allegations made by Katz and Busch in the Katz/Busch Action.

This was particularly difficult to deal with given all of the struggles Roger and Martin had endured in order to keep the businesses afloat in the 1980s and to ultimately make them profitable. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 44; Martin's Affidavit, para. 20] (vv) Most disturbing to Roger and Martin is the fact that their father died on November 11, 2007, with the Katz/Busch Action extant.

While their father knew the history behind the Construction Companies, and had full knowledge of their ownership, it still bothers Roger and Martin that they never got the chance to definitively prove to their father, before his death, the falseness of the offshore allegations. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 45; Martin's Affidavit, para. 21] Repeated and/or Further Defamation (ww) In or about July of 2012, Roger and Martin became aware of a website known as www.superstarcorruption.com. From a review of the content of that website, it appears that it is a website created by, and maintained by, the Defendants.

A number of segments of the website, titled "The Western Case", "Getting Lucky", "Derrick Snowdy, Cunningham and the Gouin Brothers", "Closing Observations", and "Concluding Comments", clearly refer to, and pertain to, the Plaintiffs. By this website, the Defendants have repeated the Defamatory Statements.

The following are some of the more relevant excerpts from that website: Shortly after the arrest and the initiation of the fraud charges in relation to the two private investigators concerned, there were, in the normal course, regularly scheduled remand hearings attended by counsel for the two investigators. … At one of these early remand hearings, in either late April or early May 2009, a lawyer associated with a Toronto law firm made an unsolicited appearance as an 'observer' at the remand proceedings.

This representative had attended the proceedings because of an Alberta case allegedly involving the same two investigators. … The only Alberta case in relation to which the representative could have attended would have been an investigation requested by the security director for the Katz Group of companies, one Michael Fluker, a former R.C.M.P. officer, on behalf of two female plaintiffs in a legal action concerning the disposition of in excess of $ 400 million in assets following the sale of a construction company. ...

The matter became the subject of litigation in 2011 in the court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Court File 1003-12420) involving Roger Gouin and Martin Gouin as plaintiffs and Cullen Johnson, Johnson Investigations Inc., Elaine White and World Solutions

(2004) Inc. as defendants. The Alberta matter is related to a previous civil action that involved a dispute concerning these several hundred million dollars in liquid assets between the Gouin brothers as defendants and Renee Gouin Katz and Elaine Gouin Busch as plaintiffs. (Court File 0503-02298) ... It is a reasonable assumption, based on a Discontinuance of Claim motion filed by the plaintiffs on February 1, 2010, that this

Discontinuance motion no doubt occurred in exchange for an agreement by the defendants to pay a substantial settlement to the plaintiffs. The Gouin brothers - curiously - now are alleging that this 'correct' information defamed them … Similar to the Cunningham matter, the Gouin brothers have launched a vindictive civil lawsuit not because the financial intelligence information provided to the plaintiffs was false or fraudulent … It must also be noted that the Gouin matter involved, inter alia, funds deposited into offshore financial accounts in the Cayman Islands , a country identified by the International Monetary Fund (I.M.

F) as one of the most significant - the fifth largest - and popular tax haven countries in the world other than Switzerland. … It must be noted that there are now seven (7) billion inhabitants on this planet who collectively hold additional tens of billions of financial accounts in hundreds of thousands of branches of tens of thousands of financial institutions in hundreds of countries around the world.

It is, therefore, more than reasonable to ask just how then, given these circumstances, could anyone, including Johnson and White, simply 'get lucky' in terms of discovering the particular financial accounts involved in the Gouin matter? The answer, plainly, is that it is absolutely impossible for these or any investigators to 'get lucky' in this way and it is totally irresponsible and beyond absurdity for a court or anyone to suggest that financial account information could possibly be found simply by 'luck' alone.

Rather, the true explanation is simply that the investigators are skilled, experienced and have access to highly accurate confidential financial intelligence information. There can be no other reasonable or rational explanation. 'Luck' has nothing to do with the matter. There are literally millions of individuals employed by central banks, central revenue agencies, financial institutions and financial intelligence units (F.I.U.) worldwide.

Many thousands of these individuals, in particular, have direct access to confidential financial records and - particularly since the events of 9/11 - increasingly share such information with one another. These many thousands of individuals are associated with many more tens of thousands of individuals outside of the workplace through family members, friends and other acquaintances.

It is, therefore, potentially very easy for an investigator to obtain confidential financial intelligence information indirectly from individuals who may be associated to other individuals who have direct access to confidential financial records. All that is required is that an investigator happens to be introduced to and develops a relationship of trust with one or more of these confidential informants. Obtaining confidential financial intelligence information is no more difficult than obtaining access to the content of an encrypted (security protected) document.

If one knows the proper password, it is both simple and easy to open an encrypted document and discover its contents.

Equally, if one has developed a trusted relationship with a confidential source, it is just as simple and easy to obtain confidential financial intelligence information. No 'smoke-and-mirrors' are involved or required whatsoever. Indeed, anyone who has ever attempted to learn about or confirm the existence of unknown accounts, whether located in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction, knows that financial institutions will disclose absolutely nothing to plaintiffs or victims no matter what the circumstances. Just ask Renee Gouin Katz or Elaine Gouin Busch about their experience.

Charged with the duty of investigating criminal activity, police not only lack the knowledge and resources to properly investigate significant financial crime, they are actively prevented from doing so by financial institutions and governments arguably to protect certain corrupt-wealthy and politically connected members of the establishment from being identified as perpetrators of financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion.

It is accurate and valid simply because it is provided by confidential informants within various governments and financial institutions who access and obtain the very same financial intelligence that is collected and maintained by the governments and financial institutions. There is no need to fabricate any information whatsoever.

After all, to the extent that the information Johnson and White provide is accurate and valid - and it is - … That is precisely why the only recourse available to the Gouin brothers was a civil suit for 'defamation' … [Emphasis added] [Roger's Affidavit, para. 49; Exhibit "J"] (xx) As a result of the internet publications described above, the Plaintiffs continue to suffer all of the negativity, suspicion, doubt, and questioning that they suffered when the Defamatory Statements were first made. [Roger's Affidavit, para. 50; Martin's Affidavit, para. 22] Whereabouts of White and Johnson (yy) White and Johnson were eventually apprehended in Turks/Caicos and they are now in custody pending extradition proceedings [Roger's Affidavit, para. 51] Wrongful Procurement of Financial Information (zz) Roger and Martin became aware that a person had contacted their financial institution, Scotiabank, by telephone, on seven separate occasions purporting to be Martin's wife, Sarah Gouin.

During those conversations, this impersonator sought information pertaining to the businesses owned by Roger and Martin. Copies of the audio recordings taken during these calls were obtained from Scotiabank. From these audio recordings, transcripts were commissioned; these are attached as Exhibit "I" to Roger's Affidavit. Unfortunately, as confirmed in the transcripts, Scotiabank provided verbally, and by fax, certain confidential information belonging to Roger and Martin and their companies to this impersonator. [Roger's Affidavit, paras.46-48] The Law of Defamation Liability

[7] The tort of defamation is one of strict liability. To obtain judgment and an award of damages, the plaintiff in a defamationaction is required to prove three things (1) that the impugned words were defamatory; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff;and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. If theseelements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed. The plaintiff is not required to show that thedefendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless.

If the plaintiff proves the required elements, the onus then shiftsto the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability. Grant v. Torstar Corporation, 2009 SCC 61 , [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 at paras. 28 and 29 (

a) The Impugned Words Were Defamatory [8] To be considered defamatory, the impugned words must tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonableperson. The type of injury that defines defamation is damage to reputation which is assessed objectively, from the perspective of anordinary person. "Injury exists where an ordinary person ... believe[s] that the remarks made, when viewed as a whole, brought discrediton the reputation of the victim…" Malhab v. Diffusion Metromedia CMR Inc. 2011 S.C.R. 214 at paras. 26-28 [9] On an application under Rule 3.37, the Defendants are deemed to have admitted the allegations in the (Amended)Statement(

s) of Claim. The commencement documents filed in the within actions expressly allege that In the usual and ordinary meaningof the words used, the Defamatory Statements were intended by the Defendants and were understood by the recipients thereof, to meanthat the Plaintiffs were untrustworthy, dishonest, underhanded and unethical.

Moreover, the evidence adduced on the within applicationsassists in establishing that the Defendants told Katz and Busch and/or their agents that Roger and Martin had transferred monies tonumerous (97) bank accounts offshore, giving rise to the innuendo that Roger and Martin are "hiding" monies offshore in order to defeatthe interests of another, be it the tax authorities or Katz and Busch. [10] Generally, it is defamatory to suggest that someone is corrupt or that someone acted dishonestly or dishonourably.

Similarly,a statement which expressly states or insinuates that the Plaintiff is a criminal or participating in a criminal act is defamatory. Varga v. Van Panhuis 2000 ABQB 538 at para. 26 Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd., (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3.at paras. 62 and 69 Kelly v. Low (AB QB) at para. 117 [11] At least one court has specifically accepted that an allegation that a party transferred money to an offshore account to evadetaxes would constitute defamation if the claim was false. Lowry v.

Smith, [2012] IEHC 22 at pp. 11-12 [12] I conclude that the first requirement of the test for defamation has been met. (

b) The Impugned Words Referred to the Plaintiffs [13] I further conclude that the requirement of defamation that the impugned words refer to Roger and Martin is non-contentious

and easily established in this case. (

c) The Words Were Published [14] The third requirement of defamation, publication, occurs where "…the defamatory matter is brought by the defendant or hisagent to the knowledge or understanding of some person other than the plaintiff". McNichol v. Grandy, (SCC), [1931] S.C.R. 696 at 704 [15] "Unlike the strict liability approach applied to the issues of the defamatory meaning, and reference to the plaintiff, the fault ofthe defendant is a requirement with respect to the issue of publication.

The defendant must have intended to publish the material, orfailing that, must have been unreasonable with respect to the risk of its publication, in order to be responsible for its publication." Theburden is on the defendant to disprove fault with regard to publication (i.e. that publication was not intended). Lewis N. Klar, Tort Law 5th ed (Thomson Reuters, 2012) ("Klar") at p. 800 [16] On an application under Rule 3.37, the Defendants are deemed to have admitted the allegations in the (Amended)Statement(

s) of Claim. The commencement documents filed in the within actions expressly allege that the Defendants published theDefamatory Statements to Katz and Busch. The publication of the Defamatory Statements by the Defendants occurred through theirissuance of one or more reports to Katz and Busch and/or their agents in exchange for the payment of money. As such, it is clear that theDefendants not only published the information at issue, but they clearly intended to publish this information.

Liability for Republication [17] In the within actions, the Plaintiffs have complained about the initial publication of the Defamatory Statements by theDefendants to Katz and Busch and/or their agent, as well as about the republication of the Statements, including the republication of thesame: (

a) by Katz and Busch to family and friends; (

b) in the Statement of Claim filed to commence the Katz/Busch Action; (

c) in the Edmonton Journal; and (

d) most recently, on the Defendants' website (collectively, the "Republications"). [18] The general rule is that a person is only responsible for his or her own defamatory publications, and not for their repetition byothers. There are however three exceptions to this rule: (1) where the initial publisher authorised or intended the person to whom he published the words to repeat or republish them to somethird person; (2) where the repetition or republication of the words to a third person was the natural and probable result of the original publication;or [Underlining added]

(3) where the person to whom the original publication was made was under a moral duty to repeat or republish the words to a thirdperson. Cooper v Hennan 2005 ABQB 709 at para 21 [19] A "natural and probable" result may be found if the republication of the original publication is an expected result, even if it isnot the most expected result.

Hiltz and Seamone Company Limited v Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (NS SC) at p.8. [20] The natural and probable expectation analysis is both objective and subjective; that is, the Court must consider whether areasonable person in the Defendants' shoes would have expected the defamatory matter to be republished. McManus v. Beckham, [2002] 4 All ER 497(CA) at pp. 17, 19 and 20. [21] I conclude that the republication of the Defamatory Statements by Katz/Busch was either intended by the Defendants and/orwas the natural and probable result of the Defendants' publication.

The Defendants are private investigators who sell information tothird parties for some use by those third parties. If those third parties were prohibited from repeating, or not reasonably expected torepeat, the information they purchased from the Defendants, it is unlikely that they would purchase the information at all.

As such, Iconclude that the Defendants are liable for the republication of the Defamatory Statements as a reasonable person in the Defendants'shoes would have expected Katz and Busch to publish the Defamatory Statements. [22] Where, like here, the defamatory comments are repeated on an occasion which is protected by a privilege (ie. the filing of aStatement of Claim, and in a newspaper

article like the Edmonton Journal), the case law is mixed as to whether the original publisher isliable for the republication. Some courts take the position that not only is the person protected who republishes the comments on the privileged occasion but so alsois the original publisher even though he or she might have been liable if the comment had been published on an non-privileged occasion.Other courts would impose liability on the original publisher for the republication. R.E.

Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (loose-leaf edition) at 7-42 [23] For instance, a 1978 Virginia Court held that the original publisher of defamatory matter was immune from liability forrepublication because the republisher had absolute privilege. The Virginia Court's conclusion expressly rejected both the Restatement(Second) of Torts view to the contrary and English authority to the contrary. Watt v.

McKelvie 248 S.E.2d 826 (1978) at pp. 3 and 4 [24] On the other hand, a 1942 Missouri Court held that liability is imputed to an original publisher for third party republication,notwithstanding that the third party might enjoy a privilege protection. The Quebec Court of Appeal effectively made the same findingbut without express reference to the general rule regarding liability for republication or the exceptions thereto. Laun v. Union Electric Co. of Mo., 166 SW 2d 1065 (1942) at p.8. Lafferty, Harwood & Partners v. Parizeau, (QC CA)

[25] In dealing with an application for particulars, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in 1996 effectively agreed with theMissouri and Quebec courts in commenting as follows: Further, if A did not write on an occasion of privilege, it is not open to A to argue he is entitled to know who republished to whom inorder to rely on any privilege which might attach to the occasion of republication as a defence to the claim for damages based on therepublication.

In short, where republication is pleaded, as it is here, as the primary source of damages arising from the original publication, the issue iswhether the defendants intended, authorized or foresaw the republication, not how republication actually occurred nor what defencesmight be open to the republisher. [26] The Court held that if one of the exceptions to the general rule is proved, then A in the example, would be liable for damagesregardless of how republication actually occurred. Pacific Coast Savings Insurance Services Ltd. v.

Strong (BC SC) at paras. 24-26 [27] I conclude that this Court should follow the English and Canadian authority decided on this point, and the Defendants shouldbe held liable for the Republications. The Law on Damages [28] Defamation is a strict liability tort and damages are presumed from the publication of the false statement and are awarded atlarge. There is no duty to prove actual damages. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (SCC) at para. 164 [29] Compensatory damages, both general, special and punitive damages are available in a defamation action.

It has been saidhowever that the calculation of damages for defamation is speculative and an inexact science, that there is no objective measure, and thatdamages need not be calculated mathematically. Best v. Weatherall 2010 BCCA 202 at para. 45 and 46 [30] The Supreme Court of Canada has nevertheless set out the factors the courts should consider in determining the quantum ofdamages in defamation cases. (1) the plaintiff's position and standing; (2) the nature and seriousness of the defamatory statements; (3) the mode and extent of publication; (4) the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology; and

(5) the whole conduct and motive of the defendant from publication through judgment. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, supra, at paras. 181-183 [31] In Hill The Supreme Court of Canada also cautioned the courts at para 187 about analyzing past defamations awards forcomparison purposes. ….

The assessment of damages in a libel case flows from a particular confluence of the following elements: the nature and circumstancesof the publication of the libel, the nature and position of the victim of the libel, the possible effects of the libel statement upon the life ofthe plaintiff, and the actions and motivations of the defendants. It follows that there is little to be gained from a detailed comparison oflibel awards. [32] Defences pled by the Defendants, or otherwise potentially available to them, are not considered in an application by aPlaintiff for default judgment: Gracey (Guardian of) v.

Scott, 2002 BCSC 1209 at paragraph 37. Principles re Punitive Damages [33] The Supreme Court of Canada in Hill also has provided a number of parameters regarding punitive damages in the context ofa defamation case: Punitive damages may be awarded in situations where the defendant's misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high handed that itoffends the court's sense of decency. Punitive damages bear no relation to what the plaintiff should receive by way of compensation.Their aim is not to compensate the plaintiff, but rather to punish the defendant.

It is the means by which the jury or judge expresses itsoutrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant. They are in the nature of a fine which is meant to act as a deterrent to the defendantand to others from acting in this manner. It is important to emphasize that punitive damages should only be awarded in thosecircumstances where the combined award of general and aggravated damages would be insufficient to achieve the goal of punishmentand deterrence. Punitive damages can and do serve a useful purpose.

But for them, it would be all too easy for the large, wealthy and powerful to persistin libelling vulnerable victims. Awards of general and aggravated damages alone might simply be regarded as a licence fee forcontinuing a character assassination. The protection of a person's reputation arising from the publication of false and injuriousstatements must be effective. The most effective means of protection will be supplied by the knowledge that fines in the form of punitivedamages may be awarded in cases where the defendant's conduct is truly outrageous. Hill v.

Church of Scientology of Toronto, supra at paras 196 and 199 [34] In Elgert v. Home Hardware Stores Limited 2011 ABCA 112 an employer was liable in a defamation action (andwrongful dismissal) for falsely accusing an ex-employee of sexual harassment. At trial, a jury I presided over awarded $60,000 total indamages for defamation.

The Court of Appeal noted at para 117 that the defamatory remarks were made to co-workers and superiors,and the allegations spread through the workplace and his small town, which affected his ability to find re-employment, and held at para119 that the trial award for the defamation damages was high, but not so high as to be deemed unreasonable. [35] In Rubin v. Ross 2013 SKCA 21 at para. 69, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal noted that awards for "libel" havegenerally been increasing. For that reason, the Court increased damages awarded to the plaintiff at trial from $25,000 to $100,000.

In thatcase, the defendant union had published false harassment grievances on a website and sent the allegations to more than 1,400households. The grievance set out false accusations of sexual misconduct against the plaintiff and included a demand that the plaintiff befired. The plaintiff, the former Director of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, Universityof Saskatchewan, eventually resigned to escape the stress of the allegations and found work at a university in Arizona.

[36] The Applicants have social and business reputations embedded in the Edmonton community. Inferences regarding damagessuffered by the Applicants can be drawn from the fact that the defamatory statements were published on the Internet. This Court, in Kentv. Martin 2012 ABQB 507 at paragraph 14 recently spoke to the severe effects of publishing a defamatory statement on the Internet:- The Corporate Media Defendants contend that, to the extent that the Articles are merely searchable on websites within their control, theyare not currently "published".

They rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc.,2011 SCC 47 , (2011] 3 S.C.R. 269. That case concerned whether a website hyperlink that connected to allegedly defamatorymaterial could be said to constitute a "publication" of that material. Abella J., for the majority, held that a because in creating a link tocontent one does not exert any control over that content, the creation of the link cannot be held to be defamatory. It is worth noting,however, that Abella J. was very mindful of the potential for defamation by way of internet publication.

She noted, at para. 37: I do not for a moment wish to minimize the potentially harmful impacts of defamatory speech on the Internet. Nor do I resile fromasserting that individuals' reputations are entitled to vigorous protection from defamatory comments. It is clear that "the right to freeexpression does not confer a licence to ruin reputations" (Grant, at para. 58). Because the internet is a powerful medium for all kinds ofexpression. it is also a potentially powerful vehicle for expression that is defamatory. In Barrick Gold Corp. v.

Lopehandia (ON CA), (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416 (C.A.), at para. 32, Blair J.A. recognized the Internet's "tremendous power" to harmreputation, citing with approval the following excerpt from Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, "Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse inCyberspace" (2000), 49 Duke L.J. 855, at pp. 863-64: Although Internet communications may have the ephemeral qualities of gossip with regard to accuracy, they are communicatedthrough a medium more pervasive than print, and for this reason they have tremendous power to harm reputation.

Once a message enterscyberspace, millions of people worldwide can gain access to it. Even if the message is posted in a discussion forum frequented by only ahandful of people, any one of them can republish the message by printing it or, as is more likely, by forwarding it instantly to a differentdiscussion forum. And if the message is sufficiently provocative, it may be republished again and again. The extraordinary capacity ofthe Internet to replicate almost endlessly any defamatory message lends credence to the notion that "the truth rarely catches up with alie".

The problem for libel law, then, is how to protect reputation without squelching the potential of the Internet as a medium of publicdiscourse. (Emphasis added). (para. 14) General Damages - Conclusion [37] Pursuant to Rule 3.37, the allegations in the (Amended) Statement(

s) of Claim are deemed to have been admitted by theDefendants. The commencement documents filed in the within actions expressly allege that, as a result of the Defamatory Statementsand their publication: (

a) the Plaintiffs have been exposed to irreparable harm, odium, contempt, ridicule, and embarrassment; and (

b) the Plaintiffs have been lowered in the estimation of others. [38] For the past 9 years, friends, associates, and even family members of Roger and Martin have suspected them of hiding moneyin numerous offshore bank accounts, and of having a less than honourable reasons to engage in such conduct. This has definitely put thehonesty and integrity of Roger and Martin in issue. [39] The underlying, and sometimes express, suspicion held by others has been embarrassing for Roger and Martin. It hasimpeded their desire, and perhaps their ability, to participate in social and business activities.

Their confidence and comfort levels havearguably declined. [40] Roger and Martin were proud of their business accomplishments and felt respected within the Edmonton community. Thesuggestion that they felt the need to hide money offshore to avoid certain obligations detracted from their pride and self-esteem. This isparticularly true given all of the struggles they went through in ensuring that the Construction Companies endured the financiallytroubled economy of the 1980s.

[ 41 ] Since Roger and Martin's father, Ivan, died while the Katz/Busch Action was extant, Ivan was not privy to the

summary judgment proceedings or the KPMG Report nor did he know that the action was ultimately dismissed with significant costs payable by Katz.

To know that their father passed without him learning about the history and character of White and Johnson, and without learning that the Defamatory Statements were false, has been particularly disconcerting for Roger and Martin. [ 42 ] The Defendants in the within actions provided Michael Fluker, ( “ Fluker ” ) Director of Security for the Katz Group, false financial information which wrongfully conveyed that the Applicants had transferred millions of dollars to numerous offshore accounts. The innuendo attached to the Defendants' publication to Mr.

Fluker is that the Applicants are dishonest, untrustworthy crooks. The evidence adduced on the applications unequivocally demonstrates that the statements published by the Defendants are false. [ 43 ] The defamatory statements were published by Fluker to Katz and Busch or their agents who then published them in a Statement of Claim. The defamatory statements were thereafter republished in the Edmonton Journal and on the Defendants' website www.superstarcorruption.com. The website does not indicate how many hits the site has had, however, the website was brought to the attention of the Applicants by a third party.

The content of the website is still available on-line. [ 44 ] The Defendants are liable for each and every republication of the defamatory statements. Liability is established as a result of the Notings in Default entered against the Defendants. Moreover there is no question that the republications were the natural and probable consequence of the initial publication.

The whole point of obtaining the (false) financial information was to use it against the Applicants. [ 45 ] In addition, the Affidavits filed by the Applicants enable this Court to draw logical inferences as to the breadth and effects of the publication and republication of the defamatory statements on the Applicants, particularly when regard is had to the Applicants' involvement in specific organizations and activities. [ 46 ] The circumstances of this case, specifically, the gravity of the defamatory statements, the repetition of the defamatory statements, the period of time over which the statements have been repeated, and the breadth of the publication and republication, warrant an award of general damages, in favour of each of the Applicants, at the high end of the general damages spectrum for defamation. [ 47 ] Furthermore as demonstrated by website extracts attached to Roger's Affidavit, the Defendants maintain, publicly and apparently even from police custody, the accuracy of the Defamatory Statements.

Publication on this website which not only repeats the defamation but broadens the audience to which it was published. [ 48 ] Having regard to the foregoing, I conclude that an award of general damages in the amount of $100,000.00, in favour of each of Roger and Martin in each action, would be fair and reasonable. Punitive Damages - Conclusion [ 49 ] The commencement documents filed in the within actions expressly allege that the Defamatory Statements were made in a reckless and malicious manner.

This is supported by the severity of the Defamatory Statements, the contempt the Defendants have displayed through their website, and the length of time the allegations have been sustained by the Defendants notwithstanding the terms upon which the Katz/Busch Action was resolved. [ 50 ] Moreover it appears that White and Johnson have been the subject of numerous legal proceedings, primarily criminal fraud proceedings, in which it has been alleged that they sold financial information to a party who used that information to commence an action, or to pursue an action, against someone else.

[51] The Defendants in this case deserve to be punished for their reckless and malicious behaviour. This is particularly true giventhat it is quite probable that the Defendants have previously engaged in this behaviour and have attempted to abscond the jurisdiction toavoid dealing with the related charges against them. [52] In the present case, the Defendants used their businesses to sell fake financial information about one person to a personwho wanted to find "dirt" on another in order to sue that person. The sale of such information has wreaked havoc on the lives of innocentpeople, financially and emotionally.

Notwithstanding the fraudulent nature of the financial information sold in this case, the Defendantscontinue to insist on the accuracy of the information they provide. These Defendants have hidden in Bahamas in order to avoid facingcharges in both Ontario and the United States for this same conduct.

Their disregard for honesty and the justice system, and the callousmanner in which the Defendants have conducted themselves, define the very circumstances by which punitive damages should beawarded. [53] I conclude that it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its discretion and award punitive damages of $50,000.00 infavour of each of Roger and Martin in each action.

Wrongful Procurement of Financial Information [54] In addition to the claim for defamation, Roger and Martin have sued White for theft and fraud in connection with theextraction of private financial information, belonging to Roger and Martin, from Scotiabank. As described in Roger's Affidavit, Whitecontacted the Bank of Nova Scotia on numerous occasions and extracted, under false pretenses, financial information and recordsbelonging to Roger and Martin. Such conduct it is submitted amounts to theft; and to fraud.

It is submitted that White ought to beseparately liable in damages for this claim in the amount of $25,000.00 payable to each of Roger and Martin. [55] I conclude that no additional damages are payable by White for the wrongful procurement of financial information given thatthe Bank involved was also arguably negligent in the manner in which it released the information. It seems on what has been provided tome that a more diligent approach by the Bank could have rebuffed the attempts made by White. Solicitor-Client Costs - Conclusion [56] It is trite law that this Court has broad discretion to award costs.

The award of costs in an action for defamation, as with allother causes of action, is discretionary. Sidorsky v. CFCN Communications Ltd. (1995), CanLII 9022 (AB QB) at para. 7, varied on other grounds

(1997) ABCA 280, reconsideration refused

(1998) ABCA 127 CA), additional reasons at 1999 ABCA 140 [57] Rule 10.31(1)(

b) of the Rules of Court expressly allows the Court to award a party an indemnity for that party's lawyer'scharges. [58] While an award of solicitor-client costs is rare in this jurisdiction, these are relevant examples of situations in which it isappropriate to award solicitor-client costs:

a) where justice can only be done by a complete indemnification for costs;

b) where the defendants were guilty of positive misconduct, where others should be deterred from like conduct and the defendantsshould be penalized beyond the ordinary order of costs;

c) where there has been an attempt to delay or hinder proceedings, an attempt to deceive or defeat justice, fraud or untrue orscandalous charges; and

d) where there has been fraudulent conduct. Jackson v.

Trimac Industries Ltd. (AB QB) at para. 28 [59] In the present matter the Defendants' conduct was fraudulent, and as such I conclude that their conduct warrants theimposition of a penalty beyond ordinary costs, as does the Defendants' conduct throughout the litigation - avoiding service, defending butthen refusing to swear an Affidavit of Records, etc. [60] “Justice”, being the appropriate level of punishment of the Defendants, and the deterrence of others, can only be achieved byawarding complete indemnification for costs in favour of Roger and Martin. [61] Counsel for the Plaintiff Applicants has advised me that the disbursements alone incurred in this matter already exceed$16,500.00.

I conclude that the Defendants have gone to great lengths to prolong this litigation process. They absconded the jurisdictionand forced the Applicants to serve them in the Bahamas. They defended the actions but their defences were ultimately struck and theywere noted in default when the refused to provide sworn Affidavits of Records. I conclude that such conduct warrants an award ofsolicitor-client costs. [62] Accordingly Judgment is granted as follows:

a) in the action against White and her company as follows: (

i) the Defendants shall pay each of the Plaintiffs $100,000.00 in general damages; (ii) the Defendants shall pay each of the Plaintiffs $50,000.00 in punitive damages; and (iii) the Defendants shall pay costs to the Plaintiffs on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis; and (

b) in the action against Johnson and his company as follows: (

i) the Defendants shall pay each of the Plaintiffs $100,000.00 in general damages; (ii) the Defendants shall pay each of the Plaintiffs $50,000.00 in punitive damages; and (iii) the Defendants shall pay costs to the Plaintiffs on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis. Heard on the 16th day of May, 2013. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 10th day of June, 2013.

Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Debra Curio Lister Miller Thomson LLP for the Plaintiffs