Is It Okay For Jurors To Engage In Internet Research During Deliberations?

• Published date: 19 May 2020
• Author: Jennifer Kelly and Anisha Bhardwaj
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, IT and Internet, Court Procedure, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: McCague Borlack LLP

In Patterson v Peladeau, 2020 ONCA 137, the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") considered whether Justice Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice erred in his decision when he turned down a request for declaring a mistrial based on a juror engaging in Internet research during jury deliberations. Justice Hackland's decision was upheld.

Background Facts

In 2009, the Appellant, Ronald Patterson ("Patterson"), was hit by the Respondent's car while he was standing on a road next to his vehicle. Patterson, his wife, and daughter ("the Appellants") claimed $4 million in damages.

One of the key issues at trial was the apportionment of liability for the accident. During jury deliberations, a jury member revealed he used the Internet to access a regulation, the Fault Determination Rules ("the Rules"). In response, the trial Judge stated that the regulation was irrelevant to the case as it did not deal with liability and reminded the jury that the verdict must be based exclusively on the evidence entered into the record at trial.

After the jury returned its verdict holding Patterson 73% at fault, the Appellants brought a motion to strike the jury. The trial judge dismissed the motion. The Appellants then moved for a mistrial. The trial judge dismissed the motion. The Appellants appealed the motion for mistrial.

The Appeal

A jury verdict may be impeached where there is a reasonable possibility that the jury obtained extrinsic information that affected the jury's verdict.1

There were two main issues on Appeal:

ITEM 1: Did the trial judge fail to conduct a proper inquiry to determine the nature and scope of the extrinsic information obtained by the jury?

The Appellants argued that the trial judge's failure to question each juror to determine what extrinsic information was received resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

In rejecting the Appellants' argument, the ONCA stated:

1. Only one juror accessed extrinsic information;
2. The only extrinsic information that was accessed was on the Rules from an Ontario government website.

It was held that the trial judge did not fail to conduct a proper inquiry.

ITEM 2: Did the trial judge fail to analyze the prejudicial effect of the extrinsic information obtained by the jury?

The Appellants argued that the information obtained by the jury was prejudicial because a) its effect on the jury's verdict was not considered, b) the term "illegally parked" written in the verdict sheet suggested the jury's application of the Rules and c)...