A woman who claimed she was subjected to threats and violence after her name was mistakenly published in a Manitoba court decision has seen her breach of privacy lawsuit against a Court of King’s Bench judge and the government thrown out.
The woman’s lawsuit against Justice Ken Champagne and the provincial government was “doomed to fail” as it was so lacking in detail, Justice Shawn Greenberg wrote in a 21-page decision issued Dec. 16.
“It is plain and obvious that the claim … cannot succeed, Greenberg said. “The statement of claim is devoid of particulars that would establish a cause of action for breach of privacy or breach of fiduciary duty against either defendant.”
The woman, who is not identified in Greenberg’s decision, sued Champagne and the province for financial compensation earlier this year. She was a witness in an unspecified criminal trial in 2023 where her name was protected by a Criminal Code publication ban.
Such bans are court orders put in place to stop the public and the media from reporting certain details of an otherwise public court proceeding — often to protect identities or preserve fairness in another criminal case.
The woman’s lawsuit claimed Champagne issued a verbal decision in the case in court and her name, relationship to the accused and other sensitive details were revealed in a subsequent written decision which was posted online.
As a result, she alleged, her privacy was breached and Champagne and the government failed to protect her interests.
Greenberg said when the woman became aware the decision was posted with her name published, she contacted the province’s victim services office and her name was taken down.
“There is no indication in the claim as to how long the decision remained on the website before being removed,” said Greenberg.
In addition to her claims of being subjected to violence and threats, the woman also alleged the publication of her name forced her to shut her business and flee Manitoba.
In dismissing the lawsuit, Greenberg said she offered the woman’s lawyer an opportunity to amend it to add additional detail but he declined.
Judicial immunityÂ
But even if that had happened, Greenberg said she would have still tossed the claim, as judges enjoy wide immunity from civil lawsuits by virtue of their duties.
Government court staff, in turn, could not be held responsible in the case as they were helping fulfil the judge’s job in making his decision public, Greenberg said.
“Even if the publication of reasons is considered to be an administrative act, it is one that is directly connected to the judge’s judicial role and therefore protected by immunity,” said Greenberg.
“While the plaintiff argues that judicial immunity does not apply to administrative acts, she has produced no case law to support that proposition.”
“The plaintiff has not referred to a single case to support her position that judicial immunity should not apply in the circumstances of this case. With or without the additional facts gleaned from the corrected judgment, judicial immunity prevents the claim from being pursued and it should be struck,” said Greenberg.