2017 September 25

Romana v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2017 MBQB 163

The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application by the plaintiff filed on January 26, 2017 for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant CBC from communicating, and from broadcasting by means of the internet, media stories that are derogatory and discriminatory towards him.  The plaintiff’s lawsuit, which was filed July 20, 2015, alleged he had been defamed in a television broadcast and online article published on September 2, 2014 and which remained on the CBC website.  The Court applied the test approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626, namely that an interlocutory injunction will not be granted where the defendant indicates an intention to justify (i.e. prove the truth of) the statements complained of, unless the plaintiff is able to satisfy the court at the interlocutory stage that the words are both clearly defamatory and impossible to justify.  The Manitoba Court also approved the following statement of the law in Kent v Martin, 2012 ABQB 507 at paragraph 13: “A court will  look to see if the defendant has a sustainable defence; if so an interim injunction will not be granted.  It must be beyond doubt that there are no defences.  An injunction should issue only if the defendant does not deny the falsity of the publication.  Even if it is conceded that the publication is untrue, an interlocutory injunction will not be granted where the defendant intends to defend on the ground of privilege or fair comment on a matter of public interest.”  In relation to a CBC submission that the Liberty Net test should also apply to the pleaded causes of action for violation of privacy rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of copyright, the Manitoba Court agreed that the “driving factor underlying the Liberty Net principles is a reluctance of restrain expression in all but the clearest of cases” and stated that “the specific cause of action upon which the [plaintiff] relies in the substantive claim is not material to determining the test that should apply on a motion for an injunction to restrain expression.”