Case Summary: Jones v. I.F. Propco

3. EMERGING TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

   An Ontario court declined to order a personal injury Plaintiff who had posted pre-accident activities on her public Facebook profile to produce her private profile, even where she planned to call witnesses to testify to the differences between her pre and post-accident activity levels. Jones v. I.F. Propco., 2018 ONSC 23, per Leitch, J. [4270]

1. FACTS AND ISSUES

   The Plaintiff claimed $2,400,000 in damages, alleging that while on the Defendant's premises ice fell on her head and injured her. The Plaintiff had acknowledged that she planned to call a number of witnesses to testify as to her activities after the accident and as to how they had changed from before the accident. She had a Facebook account. She had posted a number of posts relating to activities before the accident to the public portion of her Facebook profile.

   The Defendant applied for an order directing the Plaintiff to produce the private portion of her Facebook profile. It argued that the pre-accident posts on the public portion were relevant to the Plaintiff's activities and that the Court could and should infer that the private portion would contain posts of her post-accident activities that would be relevant in the case.

   The Plaintiff argued that posts about her pre-accident activities on the public portion of her profile were not relevant.

2. HELD: For the Plaintiff; application for production of Facebook profile dismissed.

   The Court accepted that the fact that relevant information is posted on a party's public Facebook profile allows the Court to infer that there will be relevant information on the private portion. However, the Court held that the party seeking production must establish that social media posts exist and that they are relevant to the litigation: The Court held: [31] Under Rule 30.02 of the Rules, every document relevant to any matter in issue in an action that is or has been in the possession, control, or power of a party to the...