BCBusiness

154 BCBusiness July/august 2016 have been the end of it. But Brissette, feeling he had been defamed, brought suit against Cactus Club, the server and her manager. In March, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper dismissed Brissette's suit, saying she believed the allegations. Coverage of the trial painted an unšattering picture of Brissette's behaviour, and he then resigned from his VP position at Ledcor. For Brissette, it was goodbye to the way we were. "The 'Streisand e•ect' is a real concern with respect to legal claims for defamation or breach of privacy," says Daniel Reid, an associate at the Vancou- ver law žrm of Harper Grey LLP. "This is particularly true when a claim relates to salacious or scandalous information, or when the plainti• is high prožle." Reid says he typically makes his clients aware of the possibility that the legal action they are taking may draw additional attention to the defamatory publication. "If the purpose of the law- suit is to suppress information, it can be particularly risky." Media are always looking for juicy material, he explains. "On a number of occasions, I have commenced court proceedings only to see the fact of the proceeding reported the same day." But Reid believes the Streisand e•ect should not frighten o• victims of defa- mation. There are many cases in which legal action is ultimately necessary, such as when false and defamatory state- ments are being continually published, where the allegations are extremely damaging or where the information is extremely private, he says. In other cases, the plainti• is facing a campaign of online harassment, and the only remedy is to seek an injunction. Of course, the Streisand e•ect cannot kick in if no one knows you're Barbra Streisand. "In extreme cases, courts in Canada have allowed parties to proceed anonymously or have other- wise restricted publication to address this e•ect," Reid says. "An example that frequently comes up in my practice is when a jilted-ex posts sexually explicit photos or explicit false allega- tions online." Anonymity is not an option for Mr. Brissette. His lawyer, Roger McConchie, insists his client will keep žghting. "This case did not involve a real trial [as it was a summary trial in which evidence is given by a¢davit rather than in person]. Mr. Brissette seeks a real trial with witnesses giving their testimony from the witness box. Cross- examination of a witness is extremely important to a judicial search for the truth, particularly in a 'she said, he said' case such as this." As Barbra herself might tell us, the clash between privacy rights and a free society is ageless and evergreen. "Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and open courts are fundamen- tal principles on which our society is founded," Reid says. "But a person's reputation and their privacy interests are fundamental to their self-worth, their identity. Balancing these interests is a challenge for the courts. There are no easy answers when these principles come into conšict." J a r g o n W a t c h "...this may be the one time where a fanciful, no-idea- too-dumb, blue-sky concept process is warranted" (Globe and Mail, March 11, 2016) the phrase "blue sky" has been around since the early 20th century when it was used to describe worthless securities, referred to in a 1917 u.s. supreme court decision as "specu- lative schemes which have no more basis than so many feet of 'blue sky.'" now oxford defines blue sky as "having no value" (when describing a security) or "not practical; unrealis- tic"–much like "pie in the sky." Blue-sky thinking, then, is airy speculation that goes beyond brainstorming or thinking outside the box–and may go nowhere at all. blue-sky

• Cover