Facebook pages should not be immune from the rules governing
discovery. They should be treated like personal journals or
diaries. This does not mean that in every case a defendant
will be entitled to read the plaintiff's Facebook page.
That is not how the law operates.
Much like in the context of a diary, defendant's counsel
should use the opportunity of examinations for discovery to
determine if it is likely that the plaintiff's Facebook page
contains relevant information. Counsel should inquire whether
the plaintiff posts status updates or photographs, how many
'friends' they have, and how often they access
Facebook. If plaintiff's counsel has not reviewed their
client's Facebook page, it is appropriate to request an
undertaking that they do so and that they produce an updated
Affidavit of Documents disclosing any relevant
Facebook pages are best thought of like a box full of diverse
documents that may or may not be relevant to the allegations in a
claim. Those that are relevant must be disclosed. If a
plaintiff makes a post or uploads a photo on Facebook that
contradicts their evidence, it is important that the defendant be
able to seek its production.
Unfortunately, there is a good deal of confusion when it comes
to Facebook pages. Some defence counsel seek production of
the entire Facebook page and move before the court to compel
access to the page. Naturally, the courts resist this sort of
In its analysis, the court will consider the likelihood of
relevant information on the page. One example would be if
there are photographs of the plaintiff engaging in activities that
she says she is unable to perform as a result of her
injuries. In coming to a conclusion, the court will also
consider the plaintiff's expectation of privacy. If the
plaintiff has a large number of friends and intends that their
posts be public, the court is more likely to allow production.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).