Cron v Libby, 2023 ABKB 167

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Cron v Libby, 2023 ABKB 167 Date: 20230324 Docket: 2101 12896 Registry: Calgary Between: Jonathan Cron Plaintiff - and - Brittany Libby Defendant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on March 24, 2023; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colin C.J. Feasby _______________________________________________________ Introduction

[ 1 ] Jonathan Cron alleges that Brittany Libby made defamatory statements about him to his friends, the family of his partner, and his employer. Ms. Libby told those people that Mr. Cron had vandalized her truck by slashing the tires with a knife and by putting metal tire studs in the rear differential. Ms. Libby admits saying these things but maintains that they were true. Truth or justification is a defence to defamation. Ms. Libby counterclaims for the cost of repairing her truck. Procedural Background [ 2 ] This matter was heard by way of a one-day

summary trial. Mr. Cron submitted two affidavits from himself, two affidavits from Sara Regamble, and one affidavit each from Alyssa Buchanan, Amy Flemmer, Lutos Grippo, Kaila Regamble, Burkley Schofield, Lava Schofield, Sue Styles, Paul Valentine, and Dennise Watson. Ms. Libby submitted only her own affidavit. Transcripts of pre-trial questioning of Ms. Libby and Mr. Grippo were put into evidence. Five witnesses, Mr. Cron, Sara Regamble, Lutos Grippo, Burkley Schofield, and Ms. Libby gave viva voce evidence at the

summary trial. [ 3 ] The robust evidential record before the Court provides an ample basis to make the credibility assessments necessary to decide this case. As I explained in Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited , 2022 ABQB 461 after reviewing the relevant Alberta caselaw at paras 12-18, the fact that a credibility assessment is required to decide a case is not an insurmountable obstacle to proceeding by way of

summary trial. See also, Rudichuk v Genesis Land Development Corp , 2020 ABCA 42 at para 34 . The key credibility issues in the present case relate to the evidence of the five witnesses that gave viva voce evidence during the

summary trial. Factual Background [ 4 ] The issues in this case are inextricably intertwined with family law proceedings in this Court. Background concerning the various individuals involved in those proceedings, all of whom testified in the present case, and a brief review of those proceedings is necessary to put the events in dispute in the present case in proper context. [ 5 ] Sara Regamble conceived a child with Burkley Schofield (the “Child”). The relationship between Ms. Regamble and Mr. Schofield ended before the Child was born in early 2016. [ 6 ] Ms. Regamble was in a relationship with Ms.

Libby for a three-year period from shortly before the birth of the Child in early 2016 to early 2019. An order of Justice Kachur (the “Kachur Order”) in a different proceeding in this Court concerning the parenting of the Child recognized that for a period of approximately 3 years Ms. Libby acted as a parent to the Child. [ 7 ] Mr. Cron has been in a relationship with Ms. Regamble since 2020. At the time the alleged defamatory statements were made and at the time Ms. Libby’s truck was allegedly vandalized, Ms. Regamble lived across the street from Ms. Libby with Mr.

Cron and the Child. [ 8 ] The Kachur Order concerning the parenting of the Child was issued on December 23, 2020. The Kachur Order provides that Ms. Libby is to have “reasonable and generous contact time” with the Child when Ms. Libby is in Calgary. Ms. Libby works outside of Calgary and is only occasionally at her residence in Calgary. [ 9 ] Ms. Libby’s evidence, which was not disputed by Mr. Cron or Ms. Regamble, is that they have not permitted Ms. Libby to have any contact with the Child since July 2021. Ms.

Libby produced correspondence with the Calgary Police Service (“CPS”) showing that she enlisted CPS’s assistance in trying to enforce Court ordered parenting time in late 2021 and 2022, but to no avail. [ 10 ] The court file for the family law dispute between the parties was not available to the Court as part of the evidential record for the

summary trial. From the details of the family law proceedings that were given in evidence in this proceeding, it is fair to say that the family law dispute is hotly contested between the parties and that both sides harbour hard feelings toward the other. The Alleged Defamatory Statements [ 11 ] Justice Côté, writing for the majority in Bent v Platnick , 2020 SCC 23 at para 92 stated the test for defamation: 1. The words complained of were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff; 2. The words complained of referred to the plaintiff; and 3.

The impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. See also, Alberta Computers.com v Thibert, 2021 ABCA 213 at para 29 and Grant v Torstar Corporation , 2009 SCC 61 at para 28 . [ 12 ] The allegedly defamatory statements relate to incidents where Ms. Libby’s truck was vandalized. The first incident where two tires were slashed, the tailgate was damaged, and the back-up camera was destroyed occurred late in the evening of May 12, 2021 or in the early morning of May 13, 2021.

The second incident where four tires were slashed occurred early in the morning of July 2, 2021. A third event of vandalism, the sabotage of the rear differential on Ms. Libby’s truck, was discovered on August 31, 2021. [ 13 ] Following the first incident, on May 13, 2021 Ms. Libby sent emails and texts to Sara Regamble expressing her view that Mr. Cron was responsible for the damage to her truck and asking for compensation. Her explanation for communicating with Ms. Regamble was that Mr. Cron had blocked her on social media and that she had no way to contact him. Ms.

Libby also reached out to Sara Regamble’s sister, Kaila Regamble, to express her view that Mr. Cron was responsible for the damage to her truck. Also on May 13,

2021, Ms. Libby made calls to the Land Rover dealership where Mr. Cron worked. Ms. Libby spoke to the receptionists and said that she needed to speak to Mr. Cron because he had slashed her tires. [ 14 ] After the second vandalism incident, on July 2, 2021 Ms. Libby emailed Ms. Regamble saying “Jon slashed my tires.” The following day, Ms. Libby wrote to Ms. Regamble as follows: I’m giving Jon until noon today to compensate me for slashing my tires. I went out to get my phone charger yesterday and I saw him do it with my own eyes. I clearly saw his face.

So if I don’t receive compensation for the damages and a promise that he will stay off my property, then I will be going to the police station this afternoon and pressing charges. This will look very bad on you for any possible future court hearings regarding access to [the Child] and will likely result in a criminal record for Jon, so I would take the opportunity that I’m giving you to make things right. By noon today. $500 for the first time he slashed the back 2 tires, $1100 for the back up camera, and $795 for the 4 new tires I had to buy yesterday.

Please e-transfer me $2395 by noon today. [ 15 ] On July 14, 2021, Ms. Libby emailed Paul Valentine, Mr. Cron’s supervisor at the Land Rover dealership where he worked: Hello Paul. Sorry to bother you but I’m hoping for your assistance. This email is in regards to Jonathan Cron – your technician you have working for you. He is my neighbour and is dating my ex-girlfriend who is also one of your technicians – Sara Regamble. Every time I come home for court ordered access with the child I raised with Sara Regamble, Jonathan Cron slashes all 4 of my tires and breaks my back up camera on my truck.

On July 1 st I went out to get my phone charger from my truck and I witnessed him doing it. What I’m hoping for is that he will compensate me for the damages but I’m sure that won’t happen. I’ve already replaced my tires but I’m wondering if your dealership would be open to giving me a discount price on replacing my back up camera since it’s your technicians who are harassing me and vandalizing my vehicle. Please let me know if that’s something you would be willing to discuss. [ 16 ] On August 31, 2021, Ms.

Libby learned from Grande Prairie Chysler that someone had sabotaged her truck by putting metal tire studs in the rear differential. She was advised by Grande Prairie Chrysler that the rear differential would have to be rebuilt or replaced at significant expense. Later that day, Ms. Libby sent a group text to friends and family of Sara Regamble, including Amy Flemmer, Burkley Schofield, Kaila Regamble, Lava Schofield, and Sue Styles. Ms. Libby wrote: Hey guys. It’s Brit here. I hate group texts just as much as anyone and I’s sure none of you care much for what I have to say but I was part of the family for years.

I know I wasn’t perfect but I was always good to Sara and [the Child] and you may not agree that I took her to court but things have gotten out of hand now and I’m being harassed by Sara’s boyfriend. I just thought you should know the kind of person Sara is with – he has slashed all 4 of my tires the last two times I came home for my court ordered days with [the Child]. He also smashed in my back up camera now and put a bunch of metal parts in my rear differential to cause it to fail on me and need a full rebuild.

As much as you might dislike me for whatever reasons you may have, nobody deserves to be treated the way I’ve been treated and since I have no way of getting ahold of Jon or want to resort to any violence in retaliation I’m hoping someone has the decency to.... [the end of the message in the group text was not included in any of the affidavits before the Court] [ 17 ] On September 2, 2021, Ms. Libby emailed Mr. Valentine again: Hi Paul, Your technician Jonathan Cron (my neighbour) keeps vandalizing my truck.

The police have been called multiple times now but without video surveillance there’s nothing they can do at the moment. My townhouse complex has now installed CCTV cameras so hopefully we will be able to lay charges next time. Now he’s ruined my rear differential by putting tire studs inside it. Only a mechanic would know how to ruin a truck like that. This is the only way I can get a message to him. Can you please ask him to stay off my property and to stop vandalizing my vehicle? I would really appreciate that. [ 18 ] The three elements of the test for defamation have been met.

All the statements reviewed above refer to Mr. Cron, were communicated to people other than Mr. Cron, and would tend to lower Mr. Cron’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. The analysis now turns to the question of whether Ms. Libby has a defence to defamation. Defence of Justification [ 19 ] Once the plaintiff has established the elements of defamation, the defendant bears the onus of establishing a defence: Ludlow v Hansen , 2015 ABCA 98 at para 10 . Ms. Libby asserts two defences to Mr. Cron’s claim for defamation. First, she submits that her statements were fair comment.

Second, she asserts that her statements were substantially true. [ 20 ] The defence of fair comment does not apply in the present case. The defence of fair comment can only be asserted where the comment is on a matter of public interest: Ludlow at para 13 . The subject matter of the statements in issue in this case are personal to the litigants and do not engage the public interest. [ 21 ] The defence of justification is sometimes referred to as the defence of truth. Where a plaintiff has established the elements of defamation, the statement in issue is presumed to be untrue: Bent at para 107 .

However, the defendant may adduce evidence to prove that the statement is substantially true: Bent at para 107 . Truth is a full answer to defamation. The Supreme Court of Canada in Bent at

paras 107 & 109 held that even where the factual content of a statement is shown to be substantially true a defendant must also prove that the “sting” or “innuendo” of the defamatory words, in that case an allegation of professional misconduct, is substantially true. [ 22 ] Ms. Libby’s defence that the impugned statements in the present case are substantially true requires me to determine whether Mr. Cron was responsible for the acts of vandalism on Ms. Libby’s truck. Since Mr. Cron is an automotive technician and Ms. Libby made statements to Mr.

Cron’s supervisor at work, the impugned statements must be understood to carry with them the innuendo that Mr. Cron has misused his specialized skills. [ 23 ] Before analyzing the evidence to determine whether Mr. Cron vandalized Ms. Libby’s truck, it is important to note that the standard of proof that governs analysis of the defence of justification in a defamation action is the civil standard of proof: Ludlow at para 11 . The acts attributed to Mr. Cron that are the subject matter of Ms. Libby’s statements need not be proven to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The civil standard of proof asks whether facts are proved on a balance of probabilities which means “the trial judge must scrutinize the relevant evidence with care to determine whether it is more likely than not that an alleged event occurred”: F.H. v McDougall , 2008 SCC 53 at para 49 . [ 24 ] At the time of the two vandalism incidents, Ms. Libby and Ms. Regamble were engaged in a high conflict family law proceeding concerning parenting and access to the Child. Mr. Cron, as Ms. Regamble’s partner, was embroiled in the dispute. [ 25 ] Ms.

Libby states that a doorbell security camera captured a still photo of someone with Mr. Cron’s size and build near her truck on the night of May 12/13. Because of the high conflict family law proceeding and the resemblance of the figure in the security camera photo to Mr. Cron, Ms. Libby concluded that Mr. Cron was responsible for slashing the tires on her truck. Mr. Cron denies that he vandalized Ms. Libby’s truck on the night of May 12/13. [ 26 ] Ms. Libby states that she saw Mr. Cron vandalize her truck at approximately 3am on July 2, 2021.

She says that she returned home late after watching Canada Day fireworks with a friend. After she had been home for a while, she realized that she had left her phone charger in her truck. When she went out to retrieve her phone charger, she saw Mr. Cron with a knife near her Truck. She says that she saw him crouch down near the tires of her truck. Ms. Libby says that when Mr. Cron was finished, he walked away toward the home that he shared with Ms. Regamble. [ 27 ] Mr. Cron denies that he vandalized Ms. Libby’s truck in the early morning of July 2, 2021. He goes farther asserting an alibi.

He says that he could not have been responsible for the vandalism because he was out of town on a camping trip at the time that the vandalism occurred. [ 28 ] Ms. Regamble supported Mr. Cron’s alibi stating that “[o]n the evening of July 1, 2021, Jon left with Lutos Grippo to go on a motorcycle trip....” Mr. Cron testified that he and Mr. Grippo went to Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park in British Columbia. Mr. Grippo confirmed this in his testimony. According to Mr. Grippo, he and Mr. Cron awoke early and left to return to Calgary at 4:30am because Mr. Cron had to work at 8am. Mr.

Cron confirmed that he clocked into work at 7:39am. [ 29 ] Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park is roughly 360km from Mr. Cron’s workplace in Calgary. The idea that Mr. Cron and Mr. Grippo would set out for Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park on the evening of July 1, 2021 without a reserved camping spot knowing that they had to return to Calgary before 8am the next morning is hard to believe.

This is particularly the case because the last 32km of the ride into Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park and the first 32km of the ride out of Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park was on a rough gravel road which the two would have had to navigate on their motorcycles in the late evening and early morning in poor lighting. [ 30 ] Neither Mr. Cron nor Mr. Grippo offered any contemporaneous communications or photographs to corroborate their story. Mr.

Grippo agreed in cross-examination that because of the size of the gas tanks on their motorcycles they would have had to stop for gas on the way out to Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park and on the way back. Neither Mr. Cron nor Mr. Grippo produced any receipts for gas. Mr. Grippo said that they must have paid cash and not kept the receipts. [ 31 ] It is possible that Mr. Cron and Mr. Grippo made an impromptu and very brief trip to Whiteswan Lake Provincial Park on the night of July 1, 2021. If this were a criminal case, I might be left with a reasonable doubt.

But this is a civil case and the story seems very unlikely to me to be true. Specifically, I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Cron and Mr. Grippo started a long motorcycle trip late on Canada Day to a campground approximately four hours away knowing that Mr. Cron had to be back in Calgary at work by 8am the following day. The lack of any corroboration in the form of contemporaneous text messages, photographs, or receipts for gas only makes the story less plausible in my view. [ 32 ] Counsel for Mr. Cron suggested to Ms.

Libby that the person that she saw could have been another person of similar size and build to Mr. Cron. Ms. Libby denied this possibility saying that she saw Mr. Cron. Counsel for Mr. Cron suggested to Ms. Libby that the person that she saw could have been Mr. Schofield because he is of a similar height and build to Mr. Cron. Counsel for Mr. Cron called Mr. Schofield as a rebuttal witness to confirm that he is of a similar height and build to Mr. Cron. On cross-examination, Mr. Schofield denied vandalizing Ms. Libby’s truck. Nothing other than counsel’s speculation supports the idea that Mr.

Schofield could have been the vandal. [ 33 ] Counsel for Mr. Cron also suggested to Ms. Libby that she may have vandalized her own truck. Sometimes people do self- destructive things to manipulate perceptions in heated family law disputes, but there is no evidence to support that was what happened in the present case. Ms. Libby denied that she vandalized her own vehicle. I accept Ms. Libby’s evidence on this point.

She needed her truck for work and the idea that she would sabotage her own truck thereby threatening her ability to get to work and causing herself significant expenses for repair is implausible. [ 34 ] The timing of the vandalism, particularly the vandalism that occurred in the early morning of July 2, 2021, points to Mr. Cron as the culprit. There appears to have been contentious communications between Ms. Regamble and Ms. Libby on June 30, 2021. Ms. Regamble demanded “an uncharacterized payment ... in the amount of $12000.” Ms.

Libby then returned to Calgary on July 1, 2021 because she was scheduled to have access with the Child on July 2, 2021. Even though Ms. Regamble, Mr. Cron, and the Child lived across the street from Ms. Libby, the pick-up and drop off was to occur at the Child’s grandmother’s residence across town. Ms. Libby

needed her truck to get to and from the Child’s grandmother’s residence. Slashing Ms. Libby’s tires was an effective means of making her access to the Child difficult. [ 35 ] Mr. Cron candidly admitted that this proceeding is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to drain Ms. Libby of resources so that she is unable to afford to continue to seek access to the Child in the family law proceeding. He testified as follows in cross- examination: Ms. Libby Now, you are suing me today as an attempt to drain my resources so I am not able to continue to afford to pursue the family law matter. Is that correct? Mr.

Cron Yes. [ 36 ] The fact that Mr. Cron would bring litigation for the purpose, at least in part, of imposing financial hardship on Ms. Libby to gain a collateral advantage in the family law proceeding demonstrates a depth of animus that suggests that he is also capable of having vandalized Ms. Libby’s truck for the purposes of making access to the Child more difficult and exerting financial pain on Ms. Libby. [ 37 ] Ms. Libby did not see Mr. Cron put metal tire studs in her rear differential nor can it be known with any certainty when the metal tire studs were put in her rear differential. Given Ms.

Libby’s reasonable conclusion that Mr. Cron was responsible for the May 12/13, 2021 incident and that she witnessed Mr. Cron commit the July 2, 2021 incident, it was reasonable for Ms. Libby to conclude that Mr. Cron was also responsible for sabotaging the rear differential of her truck. Sabotaging the rear differential of a truck using metal tire studs points to someone with automotive expertise like Mr. Cron. Deliberately damaging the rear differential of Ms. Libby’s truck to cause her financial loss is consistent with Mr. Cron’s stated desire to drain Ms.

Libby of resources to fight in the family law proceeding. [ 38 ] I conclude that it is more likely than not that Mr. Cron vandalized Ms. Libby’s truck on the night of May 12/13, 2021 and early in the morning of July 2, 2021. I further conclude that it is more likely than not that Mr. Cron sabotaged the rear differential of Ms. Libby’s truck. To the extent that the principles in Bent require me in the present case to determine whether the innuendo that Mr. Cron used his skills as an automotive mechanic in the commission of the acts against Ms. Libby to be true, I find that to be the case.

Counterclaim for Property Damage [ 39 ] Ms. Libby counterclaims for the cost of repairing the damage to her truck. Given that I have already found that on a balance of probabilities Mr. Cron caused the damage to Ms. Libby’s truck, she is entitled to recover the cost of repairing her truck. [ 40 ] To replace the two tires slashed in the first incident, Ms. Libby paid $592.29 for new tires. She managed to replace the four tires slashed in the second incident for $798.25. She paid $4,936.54 to have her rear differential repaired. She has not yet paid to have the tailgate repaired and the back-up camera replaced.

She provided an estimate for that work from Grande Prairie Chrylser Dodge Jeep in the amount of $2,641.66. Ms. Libby’s total cost and estimated cost of repairs is $8,968.74. [ 41 ] No evidence was led by Mr. Cron with respect to Ms. Libby’s actual or estimated repair costs. Accordingly, I accept Ms. Libby’s evidence concerning the cost and estimated cost of repairs to her truck. Punitive Damages [ 42 ] Mr. Cron sought aggravated damages while Ms. Libby sought punitive damages. Both parties were of the view that the other’s conduct was malicious and deserving of sanction by the Court.

Given my conclusions on the merits of this case, it is only necessary for me to evaluate whether Mr. Cron’s actions are deserving of additional sanction. [ 43 ] Binnie J, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co. , 2002 SCC 18 at para 94 outlined eleven points to be included in a civil jury charge concerning punitive damages These points are equally suited to guide a judge’s discretion with respect to punitive damages :

(1) Punitive damages are very much the exception rather than the rule, (2) imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour.

(3) Where they are awarded, punitive damages should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of the misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant, (4) having regard to any other fines or penalties suffered by the defendant for the misconduct in question.

(5) Punitive damages are generally given only where the misconduct would otherwise be unpunished or where other penalties are or are likely to be inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation.

(6) Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but (7) to give a defendant his or her just desert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened.

(8) Punitive damages are awarded only where compensatory damages, which to some extent are punitive, are insufficient to accomplish these objectives, and (9) they are given in an amount that is no greater than necessary to rationally accomplish their purpose.

(10) While normally the state would be the recipient of any fine or penalty for misconduct, the plaintiff will keep punitive damages as a “windfall” in addition to compensatory damages.

(11) Judges and juries in our system have usually found that moderate awards of punitive damages, which inevitably carry a stigma in the broader community, are generally sufficient. [ 44 ] The compensatory damages in the present case are inadequate to deter Mr. Cron and others who may be similarly situated from taking similar actions in the future. Moreover, as the lack of police action in the present case shows, it is difficult to prosecute cases of vandalism of this sort in the absence of good security video of the incident. This is a case where the misconduct would otherwise go unpunished.

[ 45 ] The deliberate damage or destruction of another person’s property, particularly where the damage or destruction of the property is effected to achieve a collateral purpose, additional sanction in the form of punitive damages is warranted. Mr. Cron damaged Ms. Libby’s property to intimidate her, to cause her financial harm, and to prevent her from exercising her court-ordered access to the Child. It is not acceptable for parties involved in family law disputes to resort to this sort of behaviour. Mr. Cron’s conduct was malicious and cannot be condoned by the Court.

Indeed, the Court must through an award of punitive damages state clearly that such conduct is unacceptable. [ 46 ] I award punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. This amount adequately expresses the Court’s disapproval of Mr. Cron’s conduct without giving Ms. Libby an unwarranted windfall. Costs [ 47 ] The parties made submissions on costs at the conclusion of the

summary trial. [ 48 ] Counsel for Mr. Cron submitted that an award in favour of his client in the amount of $20,000 to $25,000 would be reasonable according to the principle of compensating litigants at 40-50% of actual costs stated in McAllister v Calgary (City) , 2021 ABCA 25 at para 51 . [ 49 ] Ms. Libby submitted that she should be entitled to $10,000 in costs because that is what she spent on counsel in this matter prior to becoming self-represented. Counsel for Mr. Cron submitted that if Ms.

Libby is successful, she should only be entitled to $4,000 in costs because of the modest amount of her counterclaim. [ 50 ] Given that Mr. Cron conceded that a purpose of this litigation was to impose a financial burden on Ms. Libby that would have the collateral effect of preventing her from having the funds to effectively pursue the family law proceeding, fairness dictates that she be compensated for her costs on a full indemnity basis. To do anything less, would allow Mr. Cron to have achieved his objective. Accordingly, I award Ms.

Libby $11,366.72 in costs which is the amount that she spent on legal counsel in this proceeding before deciding to represent herself. Conclusion [ 51 ] Mr. Cron’s defamation claim is dismissed. Ms. Libby’s counterclaim for property damage is allowed. I award Ms. Libby $8,968.74 in damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. I further award Ms. Libby the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $11,366.72. Heard on the 17 th day of March, 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 21 st day of March, 2023. Colin C.J. Feasby J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: Chadwick Newcombe, Kahane Law Office for the Plaintiff Brittany Libby, Self-represented for the Defendant

_______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Justice Colin C.J. Feasby _______________________________________________________ References to Brent v Platnick have been corrected to refer to Bent v Platnick throughout this Judgment.