Sarah Learmonth

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.

The defendants brought a pre‑trial motion seeking permission to call several non‑party witnesses residing outside Canada to testify at trial by video conference.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that credibility assessment, document handling, and logistical issues required in‑person testimony.

Applying Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles in Rule 1.04, the court held that modern video conferencing technology can permit effective credibility assessment and efficient presentation of evidence.

Given the witnesses’ overseas residence, professional obligations, and the disproportionate cost and difficulty of travel, the court granted leave for their testimony to be given by video conference subject to procedural conditions.

The plaintiff brought a motion shortly before trial seeking a determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a televised documentary was prima facie defamatory, along with directions regarding the order of evidence and a proposed bifurcation of liability and damages.

The court held that although questions about defamatory meaning can sometimes be determined before trial, such motions must be brought promptly under Rule 21.02.

Because the action had been underway for nine years and the motion was brought only weeks before trial, the request for a Rule 21 determination was refused.

The court also declined to modify the usual order of presentation of evidence in a jury trial or to bifurcate liability and damages absent party consent.

The plaintiff was granted leave to file a DVD of the documentary as part of the record.