The case originated from a psychologist's letter written to support claims in family law proceedings
The Alberta Court of King's Bench dismissed a defamation case due to significant delays and lack of evidence of publication beyond family law proceedings.
The case originated from a relationship breakdown between Shawn Jordan and Dawn Lyn Blake and a letter written by psychologist Dr. Charl de Wet. In 2009, Blake requested a letter from her psychologist to support claims in family law proceedings against Jordan. The letter, detailing concerns about Jordan’s character and parenting abilities, was submitted to the court and formed part of the record when supervised parenting time was ordered. Alleging that the letter contained false and defamatory statements, Jordan sued for defamation in 2011, claiming the letter had been shared outside the legal proceedings.
The Alberta Court of King's Bench found that the case's prosecution had been inordinately delayed. The litigation began over a decade ago and saw multiple unaddressed applications, unresolved objections to questioning, and a failure to meet court-set deadlines. Despite several attempts to advance the case, critical steps, such as resolving objected-to questions and completing necessary questioning, had not been taken.
The defamation claim rested on the belief that the letter had been disseminated beyond the family law proceedings, but no concrete evidence supported this. Both defendants maintained that the letter was only used within the context of family law. Additionally, a detective from the Calgary Police Service confirmed that the letter was obtained from the court file during an investigation, not from the defendants.
The court also addressed the psychological and emotional toll on the parties involved, noting the extensive litigation over the past 20 years stemming from the relationship breakdown. Given the inordinate and inexcusable delay, the court concluded that allowing the case to proceed would be unjust. The court emphasized that the delay had caused significant prejudice to the defendants, noting the potential fading of memories and loss of evidence over time.
