A pair of e-mails painting a local planning consultant as unprofessional has landed a Grizzly Valley resident with a $25,000 bill for damages following a Yukon Supreme Court defamation trial.

The case was brought by Ian Robertson of Inukshuk Planning and Development Ltd., against Bryan Alp following a flurry of correspondence sent by Alp to several Yukon politicians and bureaucrats regarding Robertson's assessment of the proposed Grizzly Valley subdivision in 2006.

During the trial, Justice Donald Cooper heard that, in May 2005, Robertson and Inukshuk were hired by the Yukon's Department of Community Services to "confirm the development sustainability and identifyhow the development may be phased.”

The government had already picked the spot for the new subdivision based on the suggestions of longtime valley resident Al Falle, the judge pointed out.

Robertson was hired to "confirm its sustainability and not to otherwise question the choice of locations or recommend other potential areas.”

The consultation stalled because of a botched questionnaire mail-out, but a public meeting was finally held on March 26, 2006.

Following that meeting, Alp sent a letter and a completed questionnaire to Inukshuk, community services director Brian Ritchie and Lake Laberge MLA Brad Cathers.

In the letter, he stated: "I oppose this development in the strongest possible terms. In all my years in the Yukon I have never seen such a ridiculous proposal.”

He also noted he used the area in question for running his dogs. But as the judge heard during the trial, Alp had not mushed in the area since the winter of 2005/06. Alp's was the only outright rejection of the proposal, the judge noted.

A month and a half later, Inukshuk filed its final report on the project which said, in part, that there was no evidence of regular recreational use in the area.

In a follow-up e-mail, Robertson told Ritchie he had both walked through and flown over the area in all four seasons and saw no wildlife activity.

"It was also clear that the area within the subdivision does not receive any significant winter recreation activity as has been suggested by at least one Grizzly Valley resident as no telltale signs of dog sled or snow machine use were observed either during these flights.”

Unbeknownst to Robertson, the e-mail was posted on the government website, where it was read by Alp.

The Grizzly Valley man responded by sending the first of two e-mails which Robertson claimed hurt his reputation with the Yukon government, his number one employer.

In a message sent to Cathers, Ritchie and two other government bureaucrats, Alp accused Robertson and his company of "being unfairly biased in order to fulfill a specific agenda,” the court heard. He also accused Robertson of having a "track record for omitting items of record.”

Robertson responded the next day.

"I appreciate you may disagree with me and have a different view of the situation in Grizzly Valley,” he wrote to Alp. "You are entitled to your opinion.

"However, this time you have gone too far and your statements are slanderous and libelous. Unless you provide an unconditional, full and complete written retraction and public apology within 28 hours I will seek legal redress.”

No apology came.

Instead, Alp sent an e-mail to an expanded list of politicians and bureaucrats which further criticized Robertson.

He reiterated his claim that Inukshuk was hired to support the proposed development. He said Robertson's work "shoddy, incomplete and unfairly biased” and that his submission was "deliberately misleading.”

In a 24-page decision, Cooper put Alp's e-mails through the five-step fair comment test.

The comments were clearly defamatory, the judge said, but could be defended if Alp proved they were not malicious.

Unfortunately for Alp, the judge found he went too far.

"Motivated by intense animosity towards Robertson, (Alp) decided to misconstrue the facts and accuse Robertson of unfair bias, shoddy work, a track record for omitting items of record and deliberate misrepresentation,” the judge wrote in his decision.

"Similarly, (Alp) maintained he used the trails regularly when he had not done so for a period in excess of one year and had represented publicly that these trails were unsuitable for dog mushing.

"He knew or ought to have known that there was a strong likelihood that Robertson's observation of the site could not confirm his assertions.”

Robertson and Inukshuk sued Alp for $115,000, but the judge awarded somewhat less than that.

He found that Robertson's reputation was not significantly damaged by Alp's comments and that Inukshuk continues to receive consulting contracts from the government.

Alp was ordered to pay $24,000 to Robertson for general and aggravated damages and $1,000 to Inukshuk.