This decision arose from competing Applications in advance of a scheduled civil jury‑waived Trial involving serious allegations of defamation, online harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breach of privacy. The Plaintiffs were a Calgary lawyer and his professional corporation. The self‑represented Defendant resided in Manitoba and allegedly published online statements accusing the Plaintiff of sexual assault when she was a minor. The Defendant applied to attend the entirety of the Alberta trial remotely from Manitoba, citing PTSD arising from the alleged abuse and financial hardship. Conversely, the Plaintiff sought permission for a proposed expert witness (a private investigator based in Montreal) to testify remotely. Each party opposed the other’s request.

The Court undertook a detailed analysis under Rule 6.10, confirming that in‑person trials remained the default, and that the party seeking an electronic or hybrid hearing bore the onus of showing that it was necessary, proportionate, and consistent with the fair and just resolution of the dispute under Rule 1.2. Justice Marion articulated a comprehensive, non‑exhaustive framework for contested electronic hearing applications, emphasizing factors such as access to justice, credibility assessment, participant roles (with heightened expectations for parties vs. witnesses), hearing solemnity, logistical feasibility, and integrity of the evidentiary process. Applying these factors, Marion J. accepted that the Defendant’s PTSD constituted a legitimate basis for accommodation and that CCTV testimony within the courthouse appropriately balanced her needs with concerns about credibility, logistics, and courtroom control. By contrast, the expert’s proposed virtual testimony was rejected due to fairness and feasibility concerns, particularly the impracticality of conducting cross‑examination through multiple technological platforms and the lack of compelling necessity beyond cost savings.

The Court granted the Defendant’s Application in part, permitting her to participate in the trial by CCTV from another room within the Calgary courthouse, rather than remotely from out of province. This accommodation balanced her asserted medical needs with the Court’s need to maintain control over the proceedings. The Plaintiff’s Application was dismissed, and the proposed expert was required to testify in person. Costs of the Applications were deferred to the end of trial.