Chak v Sun Media Corporation, 2017 ABQB 614

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Chak v Sun Media Corporation, 2017 ABQB 614 Date: 20171013 Docket: 1403 07527 Registry: Edmonton Between: Arman Chak Plaintiff - and - Sun Media Corporation/Corporation Sun Media & QMI Agency Inc & Sun News General Partnership & Shaw Cable & Rogers Cable Inc & Cogeco Cable & Bell Media & Access Communications & Eastlink & Sasktel & Telus Corporation & Videotron & Manitoba Telecom Service Inc Defendants _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of W.S.

Schlosser , Master, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta _______________________________________________________ [1] This is the Defendants’ application to strike for delay. The lawsuit is about allegedly defamatory statements published by the Defendants. The last thing that happened in the lawsuit was service of the Statement of Defence in June, 2014. None of the things in Rule 4.33(2) or (5) apply so as to suspend the running of the drop-dead period. [2] Accordingly, the only thing that can save this lawsuit is a significant event in an inextricably linked action.

This application came on in regular morning court and it was adjourned so that the parties could address this point with written briefs. List of Authorities 1 . Angevine v Blue Range Resource Corp, 2007 ABQB 43 ; 2 . Koch v Warkentin, 20111 ABQB 505; 3 . Haekel v Canada, 2008 ABQB 701 ; 4 . Brown on Defamation (Canada, United Kingdom, Austrailia, New Zealand, United States), 2 nd ed, vol 1 (Thomson Reuters, 2017);

5 . Grant v Torstar Corp, [2009] 3 SCR 658 ; 6 . Ursa Ventures Ltd v Edmonton (City ), 2016 ABCA; 7 . Nash v Snow, 2014 ABQB 355 ; 8 . Awan v Levant, 2016 ONCA 970 ; 9 . Awan v Levant , SCC No 37453; 10 . Field, Field & Field Architecture-Engineering Ltd v Tempo Construction

(2000) Ltd, 2015 ABQB 471 ; 11 . Danek v Levine, 2016 ABQB 422 ; 12 . 155569 Canada Limited v Clarkson Gordon, 2004 ABQB 17 ; 13 . Canada (Attorney General) v Delorme, 2016 ABCA 168 ; 14 . Ro-Dar Contracting Ltd v Verbeek Sand & Gravel Inc, 2016 ABCA 123 ; [3] In this action, Ezra Levant is identified as one of the authors of allegedly defamatory material published by the Defendants in this lawsuit. Mr. Levant is not personally named as a Defendant. Mr. Levant has been sued in separate proceedings; one of which is Queen’s Bench Action 1603 03148.

That Statement of Claim was renewed for service in February of this year and (apparently) served sometime in May. [4] Mr. Chak notes other proceedings against Mr. Levant in his materials. One is a lawsuit by his brother arising out of different circumstances (Chak v Levant et al, QB 1403 06165). Another is by a lawyer in Edmonton (Jiwaji v Levant, QB 1503 07294). That lawsuit has to do with remarks that Mr. Levant made that were critical of Mr. Jiwaji and the Alberta Human Rights Commission but that lawsuit is not directly related to the present one.

The last has to do with proceedings before the Law Society that Mr. Levant was involved in (QB 1603 15270). Mr. Chak was one of the Complainants. There is an overlap between the Jiwaji lawsuit and the Law Society complaints. Except for the present lawsuit and the one mentioned in the paragraph above, these other claims cover different circumstances and different defamatory words. [5] Another lawsuit against Mr. Levant for defamation has progressed through the Court of Appeal in Ontario. That lawsuit ( Awan v Levant ) was about a McLean’s

article and Mr. Levant’s reports about a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing. Mr. Levant was found to be liable in that lawsuit. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied June 8, 2017. [6] Mr. Chak argues that the link between these lawsuits is that Mr. Levant holds discriminatory, anti-Islamic prejudices, and that there is a common theme in Mr.

Levant’s opinions. [7] A related event in another action needs to be legally or factually determinative of an issue in the primary action in order for it to count as an advance for the purposes of Rule 4.33. (eg Field per Browne J. at paras 24, 25, citing Angevine ). [8] I appreciate that the principle Mr. Chak puts forward would simplify proof in civil cases. However, causes of action in tort are personal and individual. Liability has to be established on a case-by-case basis and the Court cannot decide claims by categorizing defendants or their actions. The fact that Mr.

Levant may have expressed discriminatory views in other circumstances is not legally or factually determinative of what would be a central issue in this case. [9] Rule 4.33 is a bright-line rule. It has only to do with timing, not merits. A decision to dismiss for delay has nothing to do with the strength of Mr. Chak’s claim and, in particular, nothing to do with whether what Mr. Levant said (and the Defendants published) was defamatory. [10] The events in these other proceedings do not count as an advance of this one. [11] The action is dismissed for delay. Heard on the 14 th day of July, 2017.

Written Submissions filed: August 14 and September 14, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 13 th day of October, 2017. W.S. Schlosser M.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Arman Chak Self-Represented Litigant Sara Hart Dentons Canada LLP for the Defendants, Sun Media Corporation/Corporation Sun Media & QMI Agency Inc & Sun News General Partnership