1. What are the legal issues that arise in this problem?
2. Why are they important?
3. What are the applicable legal rules?
4. Is there a clear answer as to the operation of the law?
5. If not, what are the potential legal outcomes and which is most likely?
6. What is the objective or purpose behind the rules being applied?
7. Will the purpose or objective behind the rule being applied likely affect the outcome of a court action?

1. Adams v. The Royal Vancouver Hospital The Royal Vancouver Hospital (RVH) needed a givings officer. This is a person who seeks donations on behalf of the hospital from private donors. Their old givings officer was retiring on June 1 and with government cutbacks private donations promised to be much more important in the future. A perfect candidate is brought to their attention, Mr. Adams. He has worked very successfully for a large American hospital for 10 years. This was a private institution largely dependent on donations from business and so the role of the givings officer was much more significant than was presently the case at RVH which relied largely on government funding and only to a very small extent on private donations. But times are changing. RVH like all such federal and provincial institutions are currently facing huge cutbacks in government funding and so they need people like Mr. Adams with his American experience. Mr. Adams came to Canada 2 years previously at a time when the federal government was encouraging research and development projects by giving substantial tax credits for funds spent on those projects. Mr. Adams and several other people from the US came here to take advantage of this favorable research climate. Mr. Adams has been involved for the last two years in developing a successful containment system for fighting oil spills. That project came to an end because changes in the Canadian tax laws ended the tax credits for such projects and because there were no oil spills where the newly developed technology could be put into practice. In February it came to the attention of one of the assistants in the personal office at RVH that at the end of March Mr. Adams' job would end and that he intended to return to the US to find employment. The assistant brought this to the attention of the personal manager who brought it to the attention of the president and those two, with the approval of the chairman of the Board of governors, decided to explore the possibility of hiring Mr. Adams. After several interviews it was decided that Mr. Adams should come to work for RVH on a contract basis for the months of April and May and that on June first he would take over the permanent position of Givings Officer for the hospital, which would then be vacant because of the former officer's retirement.Mr. Adams agreed to this and had been working for the hospital quite competently in his position for a month and a half when in mid April an article appeared in the Chronicle, a very influential national paper directed primarily at the business community. The topic of the article was the shameful abuse by some parts of the business community of the special tax advantages given for research and development in Canada. The article not only pointed out that the reason the program was stopped was because of the abuses that had taken place but went on to outline some examples of not only abuses but of outright fraud. The article referred to several people by name who had come to Canada from the US and set up phony research projects but never did any research; however, on the basis of falsified claims they still obtained the tax credits. The article speculated on the likelihood that these people would be prosecuted. Unfortunately Mr. Adams was specifically named and described along with 5 others as one of these "carpetbaggers from the US, fraudulently taking advantage of the Canadian tax system." Because the article was published and distributed across Canada and was specifically directed at the business people that Mr. Adams would have to approach for donations in his new position of Givings Officer for the hospital, it was clearly very damaging to him. In a discussion with Mr. Adams shortly after the article appeared he made it clear to the Vice President of Finance of the hospital that the allegations referring to him in the article were false, that he had proof of that and that he intended to sue the Chronicle for defamation. The VP of Finance conveyed this to the President, Chairman and Board of Governors. The matter was then handed back to the personnel office to make recommendations. Under these circumstances what should the hospital do with Mr. Adams and the full-time position that he had been promised, which would start in 2 weeks?From the point of view of the Chronicle, after Mr. Adams complained and threatened to sue, the reporter who did the article was questioned about it. She made further inquires and concluded that the facts were all correct and there was no question about the accuracy of the allegations as far as the other 5 men specified in the article and that if they were prosecuted they would likely be convicted of fraud. It was also clear that Mr. Adams was associated with them in the US and came to Canada as part of that group intending to take advantage of the friendly Canadian tax environment for research and development, which explains why the mistake was made. However, Mr. Adams in fact did do the research and development claimed and obtained from the Canadian taxation department a letter stating that they are entirely satisfied with the validity of the project with which he was associated and that Mr. Adams was in no way in any difficulties with the department and that there were no outstanding complaints against him. The taxation department has only rarely supplied such a letter. In a meeting with the Editor of the paper the reporter submitted copies of this letter as well as documents detailing the nature of the oil containment system developed by Mr. Adams and acknowledged her mistake with respect to Mr. Adams. What should the Chronicle do in these circumstances? From Mr. Adams' point of view, he has presented proof to RVH of the inaccuracy of the report and they still fired him. He has presented proof to the Chronicle of the falsehoods in the article, and the untold loss suffered (the loss of his job and ultimate damage to his career). He has requested a retraction and an apology and neither have come. What courses of action are available and what should be taken into consideration before choosing what course of action to take