Case information

Torts — Libel and slander — Liability — Remedy — Civil procedure — Case management — Whether trial judge erred by finding the applicant liable for defamation —Whether there are common law limits on permanent injunctions in provinces without anti-SLAPP legislation —Whether trial judge erred by failing to ensure that two actions were heard together

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Danica Prpick, incorporated Debut Developments Incorporated (“Debut”) in 2005. Debut is a closely-held corporation and was a vehicle for a residential land development project in Redcliff, Alberta. Debut completed the project, but its development was disrupted by conflict with the Town of Redcliff. The project was not profitable. Debut commenced an action against the Town and two of its officials in 2011 (the “Debut Action”). In January 2015, Ms. Prpick sent a letter to the RCMP and copied senior provincial officials and members of the media. This letter alleged criminal activity on the part of elected and appointed Redcliff officials, a category which includes the three individual respondents. In 2016, the individual respondents, along with a third senior employee of the Town, commenced an action against Ms. Prpick, alleging that she had defamed them (the “Defamation Action”). Ms. Prpick and Debut shared counsel in both actions until August 2020, when their counsel withdrew. In November 2021, a case management judge ordered Debut to retain counsel for the trial of its action, and Ms. Prpick announced her intention to represent herself in the Defamation Action. Debut never retained counsel and remains unrepresented. The matter was re-set for trial beginning in November 2022. In October 2022, Ms. Prpick applied to adjourn the trial of both actions.

The trial judge held that it was impermissible for Ms. Prpick to represent Debut at trial, and that Debut was unable to retain counsel to prosecute its case within a reasonable time. He denied the adjournment application and dismissed the Debut Action for want of prosecution. He likewise dismissed the adjournment application in the Defamation Action and proceeded with the trial of that action. He found that the applicant defamed the respondents and had no defence, awarding general and aggravated damages and permanently enjoining the applicant from making defamatory statements about the respondents and the Town of Redcliff.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in relation to the Debut Action as the applicant had failed to obtain permission to appeal as required. In relation to the Defamation Action, the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s conclusion on liability, but allowed the appeal in part to narrow the scope of the injunction so that it applies only to the individual respondents.