Skip to main content

Diigo Home

Schuster v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2009 CanLII 5897... - The Diigo Meta page

www.canlii.org/...2009canlii58971.html - Cached - Annotated View

David Scrimshaw's personal annotations on this page

dscrimshaw
Dscrimshaw bookmarked on 2009-11-02 Law discovery Privacy social-media

[53] The Plaintiff has set her Facebook privacy settings to private and has restricted its content to 67 “friends.” She has not created her profile for the purpose of sharing it with the general public. Unless the Defendant establishes a legal entitlement to such information, the Plaintiff’s privacy interest in the information in her profile should be respected.


  • The Defendant was at liberty to
    cross-examine the Plaintiff on her Affidavit of Documents if it considered it
    desirable to do so.  It was also free to question the Plaintiff about her
    Facebook account at her examination for discovery.  There is no evidence
    that it did so.  The Defendant should not seek to by-pass the need to make
    these inquiries by prematurely seeking an order for the delivery of a
    Supplementary Affidavit of Documents or preservation or production of documents
    by asking the Court to speculate as to the content of the Plaintiff’s Facebook
    account

This link has been bookmarked by 2 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Nov 2009, by David Scrimshaw.

  • 20 Dec 09
    dominicjaar
    Dominic Jaar

    Jurisprudence caselaw Canada Facebook Discovery

  • 02 Nov 09
    dscrimshaw
    David Scrimshaw

    [53] The Plaintiff has set her Facebook privacy settings to private and has restricted its content to 67 “friends.” She has not created her profile for the purpose of sharing it with the general public. Unless the Defendant establishes a legal entitlement to such information, the Plaintiff’s privacy interest in the information in her profile should be respected.

    Law discovery Privacy social-media


    • The Defendant was at liberty to
      cross-examine the Plaintiff on her Affidavit of Documents if it considered it
      desirable to do so.  It was also free to question the Plaintiff about her
      Facebook account at her examination for discovery.  There is no evidence
      that it did so.  The Defendant should not seek to by-pass the need to make
      these inquiries by prematurely seeking an order for the delivery of a
      Supplementary Affidavit of Documents or preservation or production of documents
      by asking the Court to speculate as to the content of the Plaintiff’s Facebook
      account

Top Tags