During a civil jury trial for defamation arising from a televised investigative documentary, the media defendants sought a ruling that the plaintiff’s claim for invasion of privacy should not be put to the jury.
The defendants argued that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act constituted a complete legislative scheme precluding a common law privacy claim and that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion did not apply to journalistic publication.
The court held that PIPEDA does not oust the development of common law privacy claims and that media defendants are not categorically immune from liability for intrusion upon seclusion.
However, the scope of such claims is limited where journalistic activity engages freedom of expression and established defamation defences.
The court concluded that a properly instructed jury could potentially find an unlawful intrusion and therefore allowed the privacy claim to proceed to the jury with limiting instructions.
