Elkow v Sana, 2016 ABQB 59

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Elkow v Sana, 2016 ABQB 59 Date: 20160127 Docket: 0503 13601 Registry: Edmonton Between: Laurie Diane Elkow Plaintiff - and - Najmeya Sana, a.k.a. Najmeya Sana Siddiqi, a.k.a. Najmeya Siddiqi Sana and Arif Sana a.k.a. Zaeem Arif Siddiqi a.k.a. Arif Siddiqi Defendants _______________________________________________________ Supplemental Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] My decision on

summary judgment in this matter dated December 21, 2015 is found at 2015 ABQB 803 . After issuing the decision, I was contacted by counsel for the Plaintiff regarding my assessment of damages. This supplemental decision deals with paras 225 to 235 and my damage assessment.

Damages [ 2 ] Mr. Taylor submitted by way of letter to me dated January 11, 2016 that there was a misunderstanding between counsel and the Court regarding his client’s position on damages. Mr. Taylor provided a copy of the transcript of the proceedings where damages were discussed. [ 3 ] It is clear from reviewing the transcript of the proceedings on October 6, 2015 that I proceeded to assess damages on the mistaken understanding that counsel wanted me to do so. [ 4 ] Mr.

Taylor advised in his letter that his client’s position “is and always has been that she is seeking and is entitled to a substantial award of general, aggravated, and punitive damages.” [ 5 ] I am satisfied that I have the jurisdiction to vary my decision, following my own decision in Evans v The Sports Corporation , 2011 ABQB 478 , and JH Drilling Inc. v Parsons Creek Aggregates , 2014 ABCA 223 . [ 6 ] The formal decision has not yet been entered. [ 7 ] Accordingly, paragraphs 225 to 235 of the decision should be considered moot, and I vary my decision to remove any assessment of damages. [ 8 ] Damages need to be assessed by trial, whether full trial on damages or by way of

summary trial. I leave it to the parties to determine the most effective and efficient way of proceeding with an assessment. [ 9 ] Accordingly, while my decision on defamation stands, no assessment of Ms. Elkow’s damages are made. That matter, together with costs, must be addressed in subsequent proceedings. The appropriate measure of costs on the

summary judgment application cannot be addressed until the quantum of damages is known. Heard on the 21 st day of December, 2015. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta, this 26 th day of January, 2016. Robert A. Graesser J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jeremy Taylor Field Law LLP for the Plaintiff Erika Norheim Barrister & Solicitor

for the Defendant (Najmeya Sana) Michael Pucylo Miller Thompson LLP For the Defendant (Arif Sana)