Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Mandeep Sidhu

CBC was given inadequate notice of suit: court

A former Whitehorse mayoral candidate did not give CBC North notice of his intent to sue the broadcaster for defamation within the necessary time frame, the Yukon Court of Appeal determined today.

By Rhiannon Russell on November 19, 2014

A former Whitehorse mayoral candidate did not give CBC North notice of his intent to sue the broadcaster for defamation within the necessary time frame, the Yukon Court of Appeal determined today.

This upholds Justice Leigh Gower’s May decision in Yukon Supreme Court.

Mandeep Sidhu filed a $2-million lawsuit against the broadcaster earlier this year for an online story he said damaged his reputation and cast him in a negative light.

Sidhu told the three court of appeal judges this morning that he emailed CBC ombudsman Esther Enkin shortly after he read the June 2, 2013, story about his acquittal of making a death threat against an RCMP officer and his relationship with Whitehorse police.

He sent Enkin a lengthy missive, noting inaccuracies in the story, and she replied that she would initiate an internal review.

“You have no idea what this does to a person,” said Sidhu, especially someone in a small city who’s trying to enter politics.

Now, he sees Enkin’s review as a “delay tactic,” he told the Star outside the courtroom after his hearing today.

“It pushes you out of the time constraint that exists.”

CBC North made revisions to the story in August and September and Enkin posted her analysis online: “The coverage fell short of the standards of CBC journalism. There was no obvious bias, but there was inadequate reporting.”

But the story still contains errors, Sidhu said.

In January of this year, he said Enkin told him the review process was complete.

That’s when he filed his lawsuit, seven months after the story ran.

According to the territory’s Defamation Act, “no action lies unless the plaintiff has, within three months after the publication of the defamatory matter has come to the plaintiff’s notice or knowledge, given to the defendant 14 days notice in writing of the plaintiff’s intention to bring an action.”

Sidhu’s argument is that his initial email to Enkin back in June 2013 served as “action,” because he expressed his discontent with the story and outlined its errors.

“You didn’t tell the CBC, ‘I am going to sue you because of the things you wrote about me,’” countered Justice Virginia Schuler.

While that’s true, the corporation had clear formal notice that there were problems with the story, Sidhu countered.

By going through the process of involving the ombudsman and initiating an internal review, Sidhu said he did what any reasonable person would do – see if the matter could be resolved without filing a lawsuit.

In their decision, Justices Schuler, Edward Chiasson and Richard Goepel expressed sympathy for Sidhu, but said notifying the broadcaster of his intent to file a court action was “clearly required.”

But Sidhu maintains the undefined use of the word “action” is a grey area, and a hit to the general public.

How, he asked, is the average person to know that strictly refers to a lawsuit and not other attempts at reparations between the two parties?

A lawsuit shouldn’t have to be the first thing a defamed person jumps to, he said, if the problem can be resolved in another way.

“But that’s the precedent they set here today,” he said of the ruling.

The judges ordered him to pay the CBC appeal costs.

Sidhu ran for Whitehorse mayor in October 2012.

The CBC also reported on Sidhu’s 2013 case on-air.

Comments (4)

Up 105 Down 127

bb on Nov 20, 2014 at 12:05 pm

I do believe the CBC was stringing him along until the limitation of 3 months ran out. And I agree that the average person would not even know about that limitation, let alone that notice of action means notice of 'law suit'!

The system is rigged against the little person and favours those with in house counsel.

Up 144 Down 91

Truth hurt? on Nov 19, 2014 at 9:58 pm

The funniest thing about this whole matter is that Mr. Sidhu doesn't want anyone to see the video he himself took of his original encounter with the RCMP which led to him being charged with threats. He's been more than willing to post OTHER Youtube videos of his police encounters, but NOT this one. The public watching his criminal trial saw that video in court. After seeing this, I thought that the resultant CBC article was MORE than fair to Mr. Sidhu and VERY accurate. If anyone wants to get the REAL story about what actually happened that night, go request that video in court records. Better yet.. why doesn't Mr. Sidhu post it on-line himself and 'set the record straight'?

Up 135 Down 90

June Jackson on Nov 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm

I am not a great proponent of litigation for anyone. But, I consider a 2 million..(really, 2 million dollars???) lawsuit for a story that had been in print, online, and otherwise public excessively..excessive. We're turning into a highly litigious society.

"A lawsuit shouldn't have to be the first thing a defamed person jumps to, he said, if the problem can be resolved in another way." This has been out the door for a long time as so much money passes hands in law suits. Its always about the money. Take any tragedy, hurt feelings, disagreement, and someone wants money. Lots of money. It's the day of the dollar.

Up 117 Down 138

Mandeep on Nov 19, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Just to add one thing.

CBC did make the necessary changes to the story in February after the lawsuit was filed. Moral of the story. Don't bother dealing with their internal ombudsman's or anything except the courts.

You only have 90 days from the day of the story. A review done by the National CBC ombudsman is meaningless. That doesn't count as an "action." The only thing that does is a lawsuit.

So for anyone involved in defamation issues. Give notice and sue.
Thank you Whitehorse Star for the coverage.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.