LDS v SCA, 2021 ABQB 818

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: LDS v SCA, 2021 ABQB 818 Date: 20211018 Docket: 1603 08059 Registry: Edmonton Between: L.D.S. Plaintiff - and - S.C.A. Defendant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on October 27, 2021; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Paul Belzil _______________________________________________________

Part 1 - The Applications

[ 1 ] The Plaintiff has filed an application for

Summary Judgment whereas the Defendant has filed an application to set aside an Anton Piller Order, which I granted in my capacity as Case Management Judge. By agreement, the applications were heard concurrently. [ 2 ] These applications engage the issue of the serious harm which can be caused by the weaponization of technology.

Part 2 - Factual Background [ 3 ] The parties were in an intimate relationship commencing in the spring of 2011 until the Plaintiff terminated the relationship in November 2014. They were never married. They had one child of the relationship. [ 4 ] The Plaintiff alleges that the relationship was inherently abusive and controlling.

She alleges that the relationship was that of a master and slave, with the Defendant being the master and she being the slave. [ 5 ] According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant imposed on her a series of requirements including that she remain naked at all times while she was in their residence and was to provide him with sex on demand. [ 6 ] When the Plaintiff left the relationship, she commenced Family Law proceedings seeking child and partner support. [ 7 ] In June 2016 the Plaintiff obtained a restraining order against the Defendant. [ 8 ] During their relationship the Plaintiff posed for a professional photographer, who took intimate photos of her in lingerie and the Plaintiff provided these photos to the Defendant as a Christmas present (boudoir photos). [ 9 ] At the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff during the relationship provided the Defendant sexually explicit photographs of herself, which she took (Plaintiff’s photographs). [ 10 ] During their relationship, the Defendant took a series of sexually explicit photographs of the Plaintiff, in which she is nude, partially nude and some involve sexual activity with the Defendant (other photographs). [ 11 ] While the Plaintiff consented to the taking of these photographs, it is her position that at no time did she consent to the distribution of these photographs to anyone else. [ 12 ] On February 10, 2015, the Defendant hacked into the Plaintiff’s personal Facebook account, changed her password and posted online one of the boudoir photographs of the Plaintiff without her consent. [ 13 ] On the same date, the Defendant hacked the Plaintiff’s personal email account and forwarded the boudoir photographs to the Plaintiff’s boyfriend, along with a sexually suggestive email. [ 14 ] As a result, the Defendant was charged with Mischief, pursuant to s 430(1) of the Criminal Code and pled guilty to this charge in the Provincial Court of Alberta. [ 15 ] In the Spring of 2016, in the course of applying for employment, the Plaintiff discovered that her name was linked online to a pornographic website and the Plaintiff’s photographs and the other photographs had been posted online using a Tumblr account with the user name of buckslayer29.

Part 3 - The Action [ 16 ] The Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim against the Defendant on May 6, 2016 wherein, she advances a claim for damages based on the alleged breaches of the intentional torts of Breach of Confidence, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress. [ 17 ] This is commonly referred to as a “Revenge Porn” claim. [ 18 ] The allegations in the Statement of Claim fall into two general categories [ 19 ] The first is described as “the Hacking of the Plaintiff’s Facebook and Personal Email Account and disclose the boudoir photograph” (Facebook incident).

The second is described as “Online Disclosure of the Plaintiff’s Photographs and the Other Photographs” (Online Disclosure).

Part 4 - Does the Statement of Claim Disclose Causes of Action? [ 20 ] On September 16, 2021 my colleague Inglis J issued the decision in ES v Shillington , 2021 ABQB 739 . [ 21 ] In her decision she accepted that the tort of Public Disclosure of Private Facts exists in Alberta and at para 68 said the following: Therefore, in Alberta, to establish liability for the tort of Public Disclosure of Private Facts, the Plaintiff must prove that: (

a) the defendant publicized an aspect of the plaintiff’s private life;

(

b) the plaintiff did not consent to the publication; (

c) the matter publicized or its publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff; and, (

d) the publication was not of legitimate concern to the public. [22] I agree with her analysis and endorse the conclusion that the tort of Public Disclosure of Private Information is a recognizedtort in Alberta. [23] It is well established that the tort of Breach of Confidence requires the Plaintiff to prove:

a) The information conveyed was confidential.

b) The information was communicated in confidence.

c) The information was misused by the party to whom it was communicated. Hutton v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 1992 ABCA 39 at para 15 [24] It is well established that the tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress requires that the Plaintiff prove:

a) Flagrant or outrageous conduct.

b) Calculated to produce harm.

c) Resulting in visible and provable illness. Rahentulla v Vanfed Credit Union (1984) (BC SC), 51 BCLR 200 (SUPCT) at paras 50-57 [25] Both of these intentional torts are recognized under Alberta Law. [26] In the result, the Statement of Claim discloses three Causes of Action. [27] In order to succeed, the Plaintiff only needs to prove at least one Cause of Action.

Part 5 - The Application to set aside the Anton Piller Order [28] I granted the ex-parte Anton Piller Order (APO) on May 11, 2016. [29] An Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) was appointed, who was required to report to the Court. [30] The ISS retained technical assistance, for the purpose of analyzing the Defendant’s iPhone. [31] The is no dispute between the parties as to the four essential conditions required in order to grant an APO.

In BritishColumbia (Attorney General) v Malik, 2011 SCC 18, the following passage appears at para 29: An Anton Piller order is, as our Court emphasized in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp., 2006 SCC 36, [2006] 2 S.C.R.189, a thoroughly “draconian” measure equivalent to a private search warrant reserved for “exceptional circumstances” (para. 30) where“unscrupulous defendants” may if forewarned make “relevant evidence disappear” (para. 32). Accordingly: There are four essential conditions for the making of an Anton Piller order. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate a strong prima faciecase.

Second, the damage to the plaintiff of the defendant’s alleged misconduct, potential or actual, must be very serious.

Third, theremust be convincing evidence that the defendant has in its possession incriminating documents or things, and fourthly it must be shownthat there is a real possibility that the defendant may destroy such material before the discovery process can do its work . . . . [para. 35] [32] Courts have been vigilant in setting aside APO’s, where it is clear that the APO is being used for nothing more than a fishingexpedition. [33] APO’s are used in a wide variety of Actions, often involving document intensive actions in the commercial context. [34] As noted, this is a “Revenge Porn” claim, wherein the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant hacked her Facebook account andposted intimate sexual images of her online.

This is a document intensive action. [35] Revenge Porn claims are very difficult to prosecute. The Plaintiff has no control over the impugned data or the electronicdevices used to circulate it. [36] In this case, it is beyond dispute that someone hacked the Plaintiff’s Facebook account and posted explicit sexual images ofher on the internet.

The Defendant pled guilty to a criminal charge of mischief, pertaining to the Facebook Incident. [37] Notably, the Defendant does not deny that the online disclosure occurred, but denies that he was involved. [38] The key issue in the litigation will be whether the Plaintiff can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant wasresponsible for this conduct.

[ 39 ] The difficulty the Plaintiff faces in determining who perpetrated this conduct, is exacerbated by the fact that online disclosure is anonymized through user names, login names and passwords. User and login names and passwords can be changed and as well an individual may have multiple accounts, using multiple internet platforms, which accounts can later be deactivated. [ 40 ] Moreover, data which is contained in an electronic device can be deleted.

The fact that an individual device no longer contains data is not dispositive of the issue of whether or not that device previously contained data, which was then distributed. [ 41 ] Technical experts can sometimes retrieve data, but there is no guarantee that all data can been retrieved. [ 42 ] To a large extent, a Plaintiff in a revenge porn claim is at the mercy of the Defendant’s willingness to truthfully disclose all relevant information. [ 43 ] While clearly the underlying principles in granting an APO apply to a revenge porn claim, Courts should be cautious about setting aside an APO in circumstances wherein, it is clear that serious harm has occurred.

Whether the Fruits of the Search should be considered in an Application to review the APO? [ 44 ] In Secure 2013 Group Inc v Tiger Calcium Services Inc , 2017 ABCA 316 , The following passage appears at para 176: Attempts by the original applicant to bootstrap the record by putting in additional evidence that was available at the time of the initial without notice application should be treated with caution. As noted earlier in these reasons, the duty to present all evidence, including available defences, means that such evidence should have formed part of the original application.

That said, the “fruits of the search” have been considered on applications to review an Anton Piller Order: Peters at para 8. Whether that approach is inappropriate in the circumstances of a particular case is a matter to be considered by the chambers judge on such an application. [ 45 ] In the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that the “fruits of the search” should be considered in this application to set aside the APO. [ 46 ] Unless the fruits of the “search” are considered, the Court will be deprived of important information, which should be considered in this application.

The Defendant’s Grounds for Applying to Set Aside The APO [ 47 ] The Defendant argues that the APO should be set aside on a number of grounds: 1.

No strong prima facie case. [ 48 ] The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff failed to establish at first instance, that she had a strong prima facie case. [ 49 ] The Plaintiff at the time of the APO, and at all times since, has deposed that at no time did she consent to hacking her email account or the posting of intimate sexual images of her online. [ 50 ] The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff may have sent some of these images to other individuals or to online dating sites. [ 51 ] The uncontroverted fact remains that someone without her consent posted graphic sexual photographs of her online. [ 52 ] This is sufficient to meet the burden of proving a strong prima facie case.

No evidence discovered from the execution of the Anton Piller Order [ 53 ] This argument has no merit. As set out below, substantial evidence was discovered from a search of the Defendant’s iPhone. Plaintiff’s failure to disclose relevant Facts at the Ex Parte Anton Piller Order Application [ 54 ] The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff failed to disclose the nature of the boudoir photographs relating to the Facebook Incident. [ 55 ] This argument has no merit. The Statement of Claim describes two types of claim, the Facebook claim and Online disclosure.

While the boudoir photographs are not as graphic as the Online disclosure, the fact remains that the Defendant who received the boudoir photographs as a Christmas gift, never sought the Plaintiff’s permission to send them to anyone else, or use her email account. [ 56 ] As noted below, the Defendant was convicted of mischief, relating to the Facebook incident.

Failed implementation and execution of the Anton Piller Order. [ 57 ] This Argument is broken down into two components. The first relates to timing of the execution of the APO. [ 58 ] The Defendant argues that the APO was executed shortly before 5pm, and that execution of the APO at that hour made it difficult for the Defendant to seek legal advice. [ 59 ] The ISS, as an Officer of the Court executed the APO in good faith and reported to the Court as required. There is no evidence of abusive conduct by the ISS.

The Defendant was provided with a copy of the APO and was advised of his right to contact legal counsel. [ 60 ] The fact that the Defendant was unable to immediately contact counsel does not justify setting aside the APO. [ 61 ] It was then argued that the APO should be set aside on the basis that the original electronic technician retained to analyze the Defendant’s iPhone was found to be unfit to carry out the analysis, as he had been convicted previously of being an internet fraudster. [ 62 ] The ISS at all times acted in good faith, as an Officer of the Court.

The Plaintiff had no involvement in retaining the technician. As soon as it was discovered that the original technician should be replaced, this was undertaken promptly. [ 63 ] Irrespective of the outcome of the litigation, the Defendant will not be responsible for any costs incurred relating to the appointment of the original technician. [ 64 ] This unfortunate situation was rectified as soon as possible and does not justify setting aside the APO. Conclusion [ 65 ] The application to set aside the APO is dismissed.

Part 6-

Summary Judgment [ 66 ] In Weir-Jones Technical Services Inc. v Purolator Courier Ltd , 2019 ABCA 49 , the Alberta Court of Appeal applied the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada In Hryniak v Mauldin , 2014 SCC 7 to Rule 7.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court, governing

Summary Judgment Applications. [ 67 ] At para 47, the Court described the proper approach to

Summary Judgment Applications as follows:

Summary judgment motions must be granted whenever there is no genuine issue requiring a trial (Rule 20.04(2)(a)). In outlining how to determine whether there is such an issue, I focus on the goals and principles that underlie whether to grant motions for

summary judgment. Such an approach allows the application of the rule to evolve organically, lest categories of cases be taken as rules or preconditions which may hinder the system’s transformation by discouraging the use of

summary judgment. [ 68 ] At para 25, it was observed that it is appropriate, where possible for a

Summary Judgment Judge to make findings of fact on the record before the Court. [ 69 ] At para 33, the Court noted that factual elements of the case must be proven on a balance of probabilities and at para 36, the Court noted that the mere presence of some conflicting evidence does not preclude

Summary Judgment. [ 70 ] The key issue is whether it can be said that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial such that the Judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits. [ 71 ] As noted above, the claims in the Statement of Claim fall into two categories, the Facebook incident and the Online disclosure. [ 72 ] The two categories of claims involve different facts and different evidentiary considerations. [ 73 ] If

Summary Judgment is available for one category of claims, it does not necessarily follow that

Summary Judgment is available for the other category. [ 74 ] Accordingly, I will analyse each category separately in considering the suitability of

Summary Judgment.

Part 7- Liability issues A. Facebook Incident [ 75 ] The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Police once she discovered that her Facebook account had been hacked. Following the police investigation, the Defendant was charged with one count of mischief contrary to

section 430 of the Criminal Code . [ 76 ] While represented by counsel, the Defendant entered into a guilty plea in the Provincial Court of Alberta, which necessarily

involved admitting to the facts underlying the charge. [ 77 ] Counsel for the Defendant argues that no cause of action is made out against the Defendant arising from the Facebook incident.

I do not agree. [ 78 ] There is no air of reality to the proposition that the Plaintiff consented to the boudoir photographs being distributed to anyone other than the Defendant, who received them as a Christmas gift. [ 79 ] There is also no air of reality to the proposition that the Plaintiff in any way consented to the use of her email account by anyone, including the Defendant. [ 80 ] The Defendant changed her password and without her permission, sent a sexually suggestive email to her boyfriend knowing that he would assume that the email came from the Plaintiff. [ 81 ] The Defendant’s conduct relating to the Facebook incident was designed to embarrass and humiliate her and cause disruption of her new relationship. [ 82 ] There is no genuine issue requiring a trial respecting the Facebook Incident, as clearly the torts of Breach of Confidence and Public Disclosure of Private Facts have been established. [ 83 ] Given that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that she sustained a visible and provable illness, the tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress has not been established.

B. Online Disclosure of the Plaintiff’s Photographs and the Other Photographs (Online Disclosure) [ 84 ] Counsel for the Defendant argues that the

Summary Judgment Application respecting the online disclosure should be dismissed given that there is no direct evidence that the Defendant posted these photographs. In questioning, the Defendant denied posting them. [ 85 ] There is no authority for the proposition that only direct evidence may be used in a

Summary Judgment Application. Rather, all evidence must be considered, including circumstantial evidence. [ 86 ] The circumstantial evidence which must be considered in this application can be described as follows: 1. The online disclosure coincided with the commencement of family law proceedings against the defendant. 2. The relationship between the parties was inherently abusive and controlling on the part of the defendant. 3. The Defendant is a deer hunter. A male deer is known as a buck and deer hunters are often referred to using the term “Buckslayer”. 4.

The online disclosure was made in 2015 when the Plaintiff was 29 years of age. 5. Only the Defendant had a motive to attack the Plaintiff in this manner. The person who arranged for the online disclosure, clearly bore substantial animosity against the Plaintiff. There is no evidence that any other person would want to attack her in this way. 6. The Plaintiff is emphatic that the sexually graphic photographs were only provided to the Defendant. Some of these photographs depict sexual activity with him. Some of the online disclosure contains the Plaintiff’s full name and that she lives in Edmonton.

There is no air of reality to the suggestion that the Plaintiff consented to this online disclosure or sent any of these photographs to anyone other than the defendant. 7. Even if the Plaintiff sent the photographs to anyone else, this would not excuse the Defendant’s conduct and provide him with a defence to the claim. 8. After the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Edmonton Police Service respecting the Facebook Incident, the police contacted the Defendant about the complaint. Shortly thereafter, the buckslayer29 Tumblr account was deactivated. 9.

The Independent Solicitor (ISS) discovered images of another woman identified as “RM” on the Defendant’s iPhone. The defendant admitted to knowing RM through Facebook. The photographs of RM posted to Tumblr, were posted using the same account used to post photographs of the Plaintiff. The account used was “Risqué Amateurs”. Clearly the person who posted images of LDS and RM knew both women. The buckslayer 29 Tumblr account had an individual log in name and password. 10. The ITT report confirmed the presence of the social networking Tumblr app from as early as October 2013 up to April 2016. 11.

The internet log history of the Defendant iPhone was searched. The defendant was searching for LDS online: Date Search String Search Engine Visit Count May 6, 2016 at 10:19:16 MDT [Plaintiff’s name removed] Google 2

May 25, 2016 at 11:03:11 and 11:03:51 MDT [Plaintiff’s name removed] Google 2 May 25, 2016 at 11:04:07 MDT [Plaintiff’s name removed] Google 2 ...

Date Website Title Visit Count May 6, 2016 10:19:26 10:19:37 10:13:39 MDT http://slut-exposure.tumblr.com/post/129670483185/onlyrealgirls- [Plaintiff’s name removed] Exposing The Sluts Of The World onlyrealgirls: [Plaintiff’s name removed] 6 May 6, 2016 10:19:44 MDT http://bmboseeker.tumblr.com/post/125670708623/[Plaintiff’s name removed] Welcome to my deepest innermost kinky thoughts [Plaintiff’s name removed] 2 May 6, 2016 10:20:18 MDT http://pearlstory.tumblr.com/post/128450176303/1loveroftheamateurs [Plaintiff’s name removed] LikingStory 1loveroftheamateurs: [Plaintiff’s name removed] 2 May 6, 2016 10:20:33 MDT http://terrydeu.tumblr.com/post/129416268530/yoursexyamateurs18- [Plaintiff’s name removed] Not indicated 1 May 25, 2016 at 11:04:22 MDT http://realamateurbeauties.tumblr.com/post/128432490104/[Plaintiff’s name removed] Amateur Beauties [Plaintiff’s name removed) 1 May 25, 2016 at 11:04:46 MDT http://pearlstory.tumblr.com/post/128450176303/1loveroftheamateurs- [Plaintiff’s name removed] LikingStory 1loveoftheamateurs: [Plaintiff’s name removed] 2 May 25, 2016 at 11:05:04 MDT http://teenselfies101.tumblr.com/post/125800487372/buckslayer29- [Plaintiff’s name removed] KIK: pikachu110708 buckslayer29: [Plaintiff’s name removed] 1 May 6, 2016 at 10:20:30 MDT http://terrydeu.tumblr.com/post/129416268530/yoursexyamateurs18- [Plaintiff’s name removed] Yoursexyamateurs18: [Plaintiff’s name removed] 1 [ 87 ] Analysis of the Defendant’s iPhone identified a Facebook messenger message containing data from the app that indicated the following message: a) “I made this tumblr account it’s like pinterest with porn! ”; and b) “I don’t ever use an account, just google whatever you want and type tumblr after.

The App cuts out a lot of the porn... attachment...” [ 88 ] These messages do not indicate a sender or receiver, but do indicate that the Defendant was messaging someone about Tumblr and its pornographic usages. [ 89 ] Given the totality of the circumstantial evidence, I conclude that the Plaintiff has established, on a balance of probabilities, that, it was the Defendant who posted the “other photographs” using the buckslayer29 Tumblr account. [ 90 ] There is no genuine issue requiring a trial, respecting the Online disclosure as breaches of the tort of Breach of Confidence and Public Disclosure of Private Facts have been established. [ 91 ] Given that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that she has sustained a visible and provable illness, the tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress has not been established.

Damages [ 92 ] In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff claims $250,000 for general damages, loss of income of $250,000, aggravated damages of $100,000, punitive damages of $100,000, special damages of $25,000 and costs.

[93] As noted above, the Statement of Claim alleges breaches of three intentional torts, Breach of Confidence, Intentional Inflictionof Mental Distress as well as Public Disclosure of Private Facts. [94] No evidence has been presented establishing that the Plaintiff developed a visible and provable illness as a result of theDefendant’s conduct, thus the Plaintiff has not established a breach of the tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress.

Accordingly, Iwill consider whether there is a genuine issue for trial respecting the issue of assessing damages for the torts of Breach of Confidenceand the Public Disclosure of Private Facts. [95] It is it clear that there is significant overlap between these two claims, thus I will consider the issue of whether there should beSummary Judgment for damages globally. [96] I have concluded that there is no genuine damages issue requiring a trial, such that damages can be determined in thisSummary Judgment application. [97] The Statement of Claim describes the embarrassment and humiliation that the Plaintiff experienced. [98] As noted above, the parties were in an intimate relationship for a number of year and it was in the context of that intimaterelationship that sexually explicit photographs were created. [99] The distribution of these photographs, without the Plaintiff’s consent constitutes a breach of trust on the part of the Defendant. [100] The online disclosure is particularly insidious in that, the full impact of the online disclosure may never be known and maysurface years in the future. [101] One can easily envision that the Plaintiff’s future employment prospects may be adversely affected by the online disclosure.The Online disclosure was discovered by the Plaintiff when she applied for employment as a Legal Secretary. [102] It is impossible to determine how often the impugned photographs were viewed, shared or downloaded onto electronic devicesbefore the buckslayer29 Tumblr account was deactivated in 2016. [103] In ES v Shillington, general damages were assessed in the amount of $80,000 for online postings without consent.

On thisevidentiary record, I conclude that a general damages award of $80,000 is appropriate in this case.

Aggravated Damages [104] In Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1130, at para 188, it was noted thataggravated damages may be awarded when the Defendant’s conduct has been high-handed or oppressive, increasing the Plaintiff’shumiliation and anxiety. [105] It is recognized that Hill is a libel case however, aggravated damages have been awarded in cases similar to this one: Jane Doe72511 v NM, 2018 ONSC 6607 at paras 134-138. [106] At para 190 in Hill, it was recognized that an award of aggravated damages requires a finding that the Defendant was motivatedby actual malice. [107] On this evidentiary record, it is abundantly clear that the Defendant was motivated by actual malice and wanted to cause thePlaintiff humiliation and embarrassment and interfere with her new relationship. [108] I award aggravated damages in the amount of $25,000.

Punitive Damages [109] In Whiten v Pilot Insurance Company, 2002 SCC 18 at para 92, It was observed that punitive damages are not compensatory,rather the aim is to punish the Defendant. It is a means by which the Jury or Judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of theDefendant. [110] At para 115, the Court outlined a number of factors determining the level of blameworthiness of a Defendant as follows:

a) Whether the misconduct was planned and deliberate.

b) The intent and motive of the Defendant.

c) Whether the Defendant persisted in the outrageous conduct for a lengthy period of time.

d) Whether the defendant concealed or attempted to cover up its misconduct.

e) The Defendant’s awareness of what he or she was doing was wrong.

f) The degree of vulnerability of the Plaintiff. [111] The Defendant’s conduct in this case was truly outrageous. His actions were planned and deliberate and he knew full well whathe was doing and why.

[ 112 ] He attempted to conceal his conduct by using online platforms, with anonymous user names, logins and passwords. [ 113 ] The Plaintiff was vulnerable. The Defendant’s conduct is properly viewed as an attempt to control her after she had terminated their relationship. [ 114 ] In this factual context, there is a compelling need to deter the Defendant and others from this type of conduct. [ 115 ] I assess punitive damages in the amount of $25,000. Conclusion [ 116 ]

Summary Judgment for breaches of the torts of Breach of Confidence and Public Disclosure of Private Facts, respecting both the Facebook incident and the Online Disclosure is granted against the Defendant. Damages are globally assessed as follows:

a) General Damages $80,000.

b) Aggravated Damages $25,000.

c) Punitive Damages $25,000. [ 117 ] Pre-judgment interest and costs may be spoken to. Heard on the 1 st day of October, 2021. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 14 th day of October, 2021. R. Paul Belzil J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Michele A. Wolowidnyk and Vanessa T. Fiorillo for the Plaintiff/Applicant Philip J. Prowse for the Defendant/Respondent (Cross-Applicant) _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Judgment of

The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Paul Belzil _______________________________________________________ Under “Appearances”, Vanessa T. Fiorillo was added as co-counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant.