Premier Danielle Smith published a statement accusing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and journalists in its employ of publishing “a defamatory article” with the intent “to smear the reputations of the Premier, her office staff, Alberta Crown prosecutors and the Alberta Public Service.”
If Smith sincerely believes this to be so, there is a simple solution available to her in law: the tort of defamation.
Smith and any of the supposedly aggrieved parties she mentioned in her press release are free to sue the CBC and its reporters for defamation.
Indeed, I think she should consider doing so.
The result could potentially be quite interesting, as the defendants’ lawyers would have the opportunity to cross-examine Smith and members of her office staff under oath about the matter complained of, statements made in the broadcaster’s exclusive January 19 report that staff in the Premier’s Office attempted to influence Crown prosecutors about cases related to the enforcement of public health regulations during the pandemic.
The information uncovered would clearly be of significant benefit to the Alberta public.
Now let me be clear that by saying this, I am not offering legal advice. I am not a lawyer and therefore am not qualified to do so.
Still, Alberta’s Defamation Act, a copy of which can be obtained free on line from the King’s Printer of Alberta, is quite clear in setting out how one might go about filing a such a suit, and there is no shortage of lawyers in this province qualified and willing to help.
Of course, this is unlikely because the last thing Smith wants, I am pretty sure, would be actually to be cross-examined under oath about who in her office said what to whom on this sensitive and increasingly controversial topic.
It can be observed with confidence, indeed, that the premier and her political staff were bluffing when they came up with the idea of Wednesday’s press release, which represents a new level of silliness for the Alberta government, which has been outdoing itself on this score since Smith became premier.
Smith was obviously furious about the damage caused by the original CBC story, and presumably also by another one published Wednesday morning that said she tried repeatedly over several months to pressure the office of Justice Minister Tyler Shandro to influence criminal mischief and other charges against an anti-vaccine preacher who took part in the Coutts border blockade a year ago.
Said the press release: “The Premier calls on the CBC to retract its outrageous story and, further, that the CBC and the Official Opposition apologize to the Premier, Premier’s Office staff, Alberta Crown prosecutors and those in the Alberta Public Service, for the damage caused to their reputations and that of Alberta’s justice system.”
This statement, in turn, baselessly suggests the CBC and the NDP Opposition were somehow working together.
The release concluded: “All communications between the Premier, her staff, the Minister of Justice and Ministry of Justice public servants have been appropriate and made through the proper channels. The CBC’s allegations and insinuations to the contrary are, once again, baseless.”
Well what better way to prove that than to go to court!
Indeed, given that the premier’s statement itself defames the CBC and its employees, who are restrained from responding by the optics of a federal Crown corporation suing a provincial politician, I imagine the CBC’s defamation lawyers, for once, would be delighted to have the opportunity to defend the corporation’s journalism in court.
As a number of readers, including Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt, noticed, some of the wording of the news release mimicked the standard phrases used in lawyers’ demand letters seeking to bully journalists and members of the public into making unnecessary apologies.
“It reads like a demand email prior to a defamation lawsuit,” Bratt tweeted. “Is Smith planning on suing the CBC?”
He added shrewdly that the premier’s admission in her statement that “the Premier and her staff had several discussions with the Minister of Justice and ministry officials, requesting an explanation of what policy options were available” to declare an amnesty for people charged with pandemic-related violations, tends to confirm some of the CBC’s reporting.
While Bratt has some experience receiving demand letters, I daresay your blogger has had even more, and the CBC’s lawyers will have vastly more than me.
It is important to note, as I have been advised by legal counsel on more than one occasion, such letters don’t mean very much at all if they are not followed by a statement of claim filed with the appropriate court.
They mean even less when they are conveyed in the form of an angry government press release.
And unlike some news organizations, I doubt the CBC will have much trouble corroborating its sources’ claims.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
