COURTFLENO, 1701-08436 Form 11 Alber Rules of Court feat [eLERK OF THe ‘couRT COURT OF QUEEN'S RFNCH OF ALRERTA FILED) JUDICIAL CENTRE CALGARY JUN 09 2017 PLAINTIFF 338153 ALBERTA LIMITED JUDICIAL CENTA OF CALGARY. i | DEFENDANT ORUH FARRELL DOCUMENT _ STATEMENT OF DEFENCE PARTY FILING THE DEFENDANT THIS DOCUMENT ADDRESS FOR The Cty of Calgary SERVICE AND Law Department (8053) CONTACT, {BF ico Calgary Muricpa Bling INFORMATION ‘a OF PARTY FILING Calgary, Alberta 726 263 THIS DOCUMENT —Solcitor: Colleen Sinclair Telephone: (403) 268-8378 Facsimile: (403) 268-464 FieNo. aot! ‘Statement of facts relied on: The Defendant, Dun Farrel, admits paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Amended Statement of Claim herein, agrees withthe proposal and estimate contained in paragraphs 47 and 48 but otherwise denies each and every allegation cantaines therein as f each were separately set outand denied herein. ‘The Defendant specticaly denies any and all wrongdoing on her part and puts the Print to the strict proof thereof. The Defendant spectical states and the fact that throughout her deaings with various business activities by parties related to this Paint ‘she has acted in azcordance with her duties asthe ward Councilor and has performed those duties in gocd faith Unti shortly before the fing of the Statement of Claim herein, the Paint operated Under the name Terrigno Investments Ine. (hereinafter “Terrigno’), ‘The Defendant specifically denies that this Plant was the applicant for the Stampede vent referenced in paragraph 4 The applicant forthe Stampede event was Osteria de Medici Restaurant Ltd (hereinafter ‘Ostena") ‘The Defendant admits that, as a result of receiving numerous complaints about the ‘eration ofthe Stampede Event from her constituents, she passed those complaints Page tof 510 1 12, 13, 14, 15 17o1.06496 ong to various Cty of Caigary officials. Atno time did she improperiy exercise her ‘authority nor did she compel any City of Calgary official to actin any parteular manner ‘As the years wen’ by and the number of complaints about the Stampede Event decreased, the Defendant supported Osterias applications forts Stampede Events he Detencant specticaly denies the allegations in paragraph 10-12. These alleged demands related i a land use application aid not occur In spectic response to the allegations related to the Land Use Application set out in paragraph 13 ofthe Amended Statement of Claim, Terigno has commenced an action in this Honourable Court (Action Number 1701-02748) against the Hilhurst Sunnyside. Community Association and several individuals associated with i for damages they claim arose from their unsuccessful Land Use Application. Many paragraphs of that Claim are reiterated in the within Amended Statement of Claim only now Terrigno alleges that itis the Defendant herein that caused its damages. In that action, Terigno alleges that their Land Use Application failed to succeed before City Counei as a result ofthe improper lobbying ofthe Community Association and its members. It's allaged therein that the allegedly improper lobbying by the Community ‘Association and is members caused City Council to vote against the Land Use Application. ‘There was strong opposition to the Terrigno Land Use Application from the surrounding community and the results ofthe survey conducted by Terrigno were questioned by the ‘communty’s leaders. Further, the Calgary Planning Commission and the Administration ‘of the City of Calgary recommended that City Counc including the Defendant, refuse the application {As a result of those recommendations, and in accordance with the wishes of her constituents, the Defendant voted against the Land Use Application “The Defendant specticaly denies that any personal animus or bias of any kind factored into her decision to vote against the Land Use Application. In fac, when Teengno's 2013 ‘pplication was made for an 8 storey building with @ 5 FAR, she voted in favour of that ‘pplication. The 2015 Land Use Application, however, was for 10 storeys and an even greater FAR which contravened the Area Redevelopment Plan and was not supported by the community at large. ‘The Defendant states and the fact is that at no time has she had a pecuniary interest in {he Land Use Applcation. in response to a possible concer raised by a cizen, Kevin Taylor, the Defendant sought and obtained an independent legal opinion that confirmed she did not have a pecuniary interest and was at liberty to parteipate in the debate and vote atthe May 11, 2018 City Council meeting ‘As a result, there is no mer to the suggestion she impropery participated in that ‘meeting and ne ment to the suggestion that che chould be enjoined from participating in ‘any future votes on the issue In specific response to paragraph 32 of the Amended Statement of Claim herein, the Defendant denies that she was the deciding vote on the Land Use Application. The eco set Page 201520, a 70108438 Defendant confirms thatthe Application faled by an 8-6 vote. AS a result, had the Defendant abstained from voting, the Application would have falled by a 7~ 6 vote. Had the Defendant voled in favour of the Application, the vote would have been 7 ~ 7 and the ‘Application stil would have fale, ‘The Defendant denies that she ever insiste thatthe applicants forthe Land Use Application use any particular architect to shepherd the Application through the approval process. In fact, Terigno commenced an action in this Honourable Court (Action Number 1501-18290) against an architect they ciaim to have retained for that purpose. In that action, there is no allegation that Terigno was coerced into retaining that architect by the Defendant herein. ‘erigno claims in hat action, however. thatthe failure ofthe Land Use Application was due “solely"to the architect's breaches of is contractual duties. There is no mertion of any role played by this Defendant or the Community Association inthe failure of Terrigno’s Land Use Application, ‘The Defendant specifically denies all allegations contained in paragraph 24 ofthe ‘Amended Statement of Claim ‘The Defendant spectically denies all allegations that she defamed any “principal of the Plaintif’ or engaged in any injurious falsehood, Any statements she may have made ‘about any individual related tothe Plaintif she, in good faith, believed tobe true Further, any such statements cid not serve to damage the reputations of any of those ingividuals, ‘The Defendant specially denies that any statements she may have made about any Principals ofthe Plain? caused any damage tothe reputation ofthe Prainti. With respect tothe allegations in paragraphs 41 and 42, the Defendant specifically Genies that she in any way interfered withthe City of Calgary’ response to any FOIP application that he Plainif may have made. Other than providing her office's ‘documents in response to such an application, when requested by the City's FOIP office, ‘she would not be volved in that process. ‘Any matters that dofeat the claim of the plaintif: 22 23 ea ‘The Defendant denies she owed any private law duty of care tothe Plaintif elated tots Land Use Applicaton. Instead, the Defendant herein owes a duty to the public at large to discharge her duties properly. Any breach of that duty is tobe remecied by ‘administrative law processes such as a judicial review of a City Council decision, It does ‘ot give rise to a caim for damages, Further, the Defendant herein has breached no duties she may have owed to this Plaintiff orto the public asa result of her postion as a City Councilor, ‘The Defendant epectically donios that che defamed the Plait as alleged or at all and puts the Plant tothe strict proof thereat Further, the Plant herein has failed to plead the entirety of any words published by the Defendant which are claimed to be defamatory including the names of the allegedly Page 3of 68 2, 8 2 3 33 35 38 1701-08496 defamed parties, he date, time, place, context and aucience for any such publication ‘As a result, the Amended Statement of Ciaim herein fails to disclose a proper cause of, action i relation t» any allegedly defamatory statements. “The Defendant made no defamatory comments about the “principals ofthe Paint ‘Any statements she made have made about them would not serve to lower their esteem In the eyes of reasonable members of society. ven had the Defendant made such comments, which is not admitted and is expressly denied herein, the Plaintif herein cannot make a claim for any damages is principals” may have suffered ‘The Piaintif herein has suffered no damage as a result of any alleged damage to the reputation of any ofits “prinpals™ ‘The Defendant speciically denies that any statements she may have made about any ;pincipals ofthe Plaintif” constitute injurious falsehood and puts the Plaitif tothe strict root thereot Further, the Plaintff herein has failed to plead the entirety of any words published by the Defendant which constitute injurious falsehood including the alleged subjects ofthe words, the date, time, place, context and audience of any such publication. As aresul, the Amended Statement of Claim herein fails to disclose a proper cause of action in ‘elation to any actions by the Defendant that would constitute injurious falsehood ‘Stil further, the Plaintif herein has failed to plead the manner in which the alleged injurious falsehood has impacted the Plant's business activities thereby resuling in special damages. As a result, the Amended Statement of Claim herein fais to disclose ® proper cause af action for injurous falsehood The Defendant specifically denies that any statements she may have made about any ‘principals ofthe Paint’ impacted the business ofthe Plant thereay cesulting in special damages tothe Plant, ‘The Defendant speciiclly denies that any statements she may have made about any “principals ofthe Faint” were made with malice, were made for any improper purpose ‘or were made without regard to whether or not they were true, ‘The Defendant did not have a pecuniary interest in the Land Use Application and therefore did not have to remove herself from the debate or vote on the Application. The Defendant speciialy pleads and relies upon the Municipal Government Act. R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26 and amendments thereto, including but not limited to sections 170, 172 land 174 thereot Even had the Defendant had a pecuniary interest in the Land Use Application, whichis not admitted and is expressly denied herein, her participation and vote did not affect the utcome ofthat voto ‘As a result, no action on the part of the Defendant caused any damage tothe Plant. cote eh Poge dof 5a Romedy sought 40. 170.06426 Many ofthe actions complained of in the Amended Statement of Claim occurred more than two years before the fling ofthe Statement of Claim and are therefore bared by the Limitations Act, RSA. 2000, c. 12 and amendments thereto, For al ofthe reasons cited above, the within action is without merit and constitutes an abuse of the process ofthis Honourable Cour. The Defendant staten andthe farts that {the within action s one in a series of actions commenced by this same Plaintiff the ‘same damages. The within action was improperly brought ata time designed to have a egative impact on the Defendant’ reputation shorty prior to a municipal election, ‘As a result, the Defendant will seek an elevated level of costs given the nature ofthe allegations made, the timing ofthe claim, the duplication of allegations from other, ‘actions already commenced and the ack of any mer to the within claim, ‘The Defendant, Dun Farell, asks thatthe Plant's claim be dismissed with costs at @ level deemed appropriate by the Cour. Page 5of6