Saggu v. Canwest 2009 BCSC 362


Jump to: navigation, search

A defamation plaintiff ("Saggu") sought an order in BC Supreme Court requiring a journalist to name an anonymous source and to answer certain other questions. The journalist argued that her source's name as well as the answers to the other questions were irrelevant or, at best marginally relevant and that based on the Wigmore criteria, the Court should exercise its discretion not to require production of a confidential journalistic source.

[68] Where, as here, the facts to be disclosed are marginally relevant, at best, then the benefit to be gained by their disclosure is also marginal. I therefore have no difficulty in concluding that in this case the benefit to be gained for the correct disposition of the litigation does not outweigh the injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications.
[69] On the basis of the foregoing analysis of the Wigmore criteria, I conclude that on the facts of this case I have a discretion to decline to order disclosure. For the reasons stated, I do so. I would exercise my discretion under the Rules in the same way and for the same reasons.


Download decision original Saggu v. Canwest, 2009 BCSC 362.

Personal tools