COURT FILE NUMBER couRT JUDICIAL CENTRE PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S) DOCUMENT ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND ‘CONTACT INFORMATION OF PARTY FILING THIS ‘DOCUMENT NOTICE TO DEFENDANT(S) 1503-05013 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA EDMONTON DONALD MARTIN KELLY CHARLEBOIS, THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA, JOHN DOE ‘STATEMENT OF CLAIM 33-1031 106% Street Edmonton, Alberta T5]0}2 Phone: (780) 905-9878 Litigant: Donald Martin You are being sued. You are a defendant. Form 10 [Rule 3.25] Clerk's Stamp Go to the end ofthis document to see what you can do and when you must doit. 1) "The Plaintiff resides in the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, and was at all times material hereto, a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Association CLAIM, nomination in the riding of Edmonton-Decore, 2) The Defendant Kelley Charlebois to the best ofthe Plaintiff's knowledge resides in the city of Edmonton. He is employed as the Executive Director of the Frogressive Conservative Party of Alberta, Hereinafter referred to as Charlebois. 3) _The Defendant, the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta is an association in and of the Province of Alberta. The Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta is headquartered at #120 12420 104% avenue Edmonton Alberta. Hereinafter referred to as the PCAA.4) 5) 6) n 2 10) iy 12) 13) 14) ‘The Defendant John Doe is the unknown author of an affidavit, which the Defendants Charlebois and PCAA purport to have relied upon, to disqualify the Plaintiff as a nomination candidate. The Defendant John Doe is presumed to reside in the City of Edmonton in the province of Alberta. On or about March 6, 2015 the Plaintiff received a call from the Defendant Charlebois. The Defendant Charlebois demanded that the Plaintiff withdraw from the Edmonton-Decore Progressive Conservative Association nomination contest or he would be disqualified and notice of said disqualification would be provided to all members of said riding association, ‘The Plaintiff inquired why they were threatening to disqualify him and the Defendant Charlebois related that an unnamed individual had allegedly sworn an affidavit claiming that the Plaintiff had offered a monetary bribe to a candidate in the Edmonton Meadowlark nomination contest to withdraw in favour of the Plaintiffs favoured candidate in that contest. ‘The Plaintiff inquired who swore this affidavit and requested a copy of same. The Defendant Charlebois refused, He also did not identify to whom said affidavit had been provided to or whether copies of it had been provided to the nominating committee which disqualified the Plaintiff. ‘The Plaintiff was not offered the opportunity to rebut these allegations or make any representations on his own behalf. ‘The Plaintiff informed the Defendant Charlebols that said allegations were wholly inaccurate and he would not agree to withdraw. The Plaintiff stated that he viewed the demand he withdraw or that he would be disqualified as akin to blackmail. The telephone call terminated at that point. ‘The Defendant Charlebois then called the Plaintiff again between five and ten minutes later to state that he had not intended his earlier comments to constitute a threat or blackmail. ‘The Defendant PCAA thereafter published a notice by email to all the members in the riding association of Edmonton-Decore that the Plaintiff had been disqualified. This included the hundreds of members that the Plaintiff had signed up and reached out to as part of his nomination campaign. ‘The Plaintiff maintains that the allegations regarding offering a monetary bribe are entirely false. The Plaintiff at no time made any such offer. Nor did he have any motive or ‘means to do so. ‘The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant Charlebois was acting in his capacity as an ‘employee of the Defendant PCAA and that the Defendant PCAA Is therefore vicariously lable for any and all actions that the Defendant Charlebois took on their behalf. ‘The Defendant John Doe is the alleged author of the affidavit the Defendant Charlebois, claimed to refer to. The Plaintiff has not received confirmation such an affidavit exists. ‘Assuming the affidavit does exist, the Plaintiff maintains that the alleged contents of said affidavit were false, purgery and libelously. The Plaintiff pleads that the author of said affidavit proceeded knowing that making sald false allegations would be damaging to his. reputation and maliciously proceeded to deliberately attempt to sabotage his nomination campaign and damage his reputation.15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant Charlebois either invented the allegations as outlined above or in the alternatively negligently disseminated the allegations of the Defendant John Doe having made no efforts to independently confirm them or even going. so far as to question the Plaintiff on the subject. The Defendant Charlebois proceeded elther maliciously or with reckless disregard to the harm that would be suffered by the Plaintiff ‘The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant Charlebois repeated said false allegations to other ‘members of the Progressive Conservative party and used said false allegations to have hhim disqualified as a candidate in the Edmonton-Decore riding. ‘The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants Charlebois and PCAA knew that broadcasting sald disqualification to the membership he had spent the past several months campaigning for would be damaging to his reputation, further, he submits they attempted to force him to withdraw on said basis. ‘The Plaintiff pleads that the allegations against him are false and defamatory and constitute libel and slander as they were disseminated in written and or oral form. The Plaintiff ts a respected educator in the City of Edmonton and a well-known conservative activist. As a result of his disqualification and the broadcast of same to the membership of the Edmonton-Decore Progressive Conservative Association his reputation has been damaged. Further, through the dissemination of said false allegations by the Defendants John Doe and or the Defendant Charlebois have damaged his reputation ‘among conservative activists in the Edmonton area. ‘The Plaintiff pleads the provisions of the Defamation Act RSA 2000 - D-7. ‘The Plaintiffs propose that the trial of this action be held at the Law Courts Building, in the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta. ‘The Plaintiff states that the prosecution of this trial is most closely associated with a ‘standard trial. REMEDY SOUGHT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY: a) General Damages in the sum of $124,000.00; 1b) Interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act, RS.A. 2000 c. J-1 and ‘amendments; ©) Any applicable Goods & Services Tax pursuant to the terms of the Excise Tax Act, RSC. 1985 c. E-14, Part IX, and amendments and regulations thereto:) Costs of this action indexed for inflation; and ©) Such further and other rellefas thls Honourable Court deems ft to grant. NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT(S)You only have a short time to do something to defend yourself against. this claim: 20 days if you are served in Alberta 11 month if you are served ouside Alberta butin Canada ‘2 months if you are served outside Canada, ‘You can respond by fling statement of defence or a demand for notice in the office of the clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, AND serving your statement of defence or a demand for notice on the plalntiffs(«") address for service. WARNING If you do not file and serve a statement of defence or a demand for notice within your time period. you risk losing the lawsuit automaticaly. Ifyou do not file or do not serve. orare late in doing either ofthese things, a court may give a Judgment to the plaintiffs) against you.