Case Summary and Outcome

In 2011, nutrition researcher Ranjit Kumar Chandra brought a lawsuit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for defamation and invasion of privacy in response to a documentary in 2006 that examined allegations of scientific fraud and financial  deception committed by him.

After a 58-day trial before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the jury ruled in favor of CBC, finding that the documentary contained true statements and that the company did not commit an invasion of privacy. The attached decision also included an interim ruling on the admissibility of evidence.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources.

Facts

In 2006, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired a three-part documentary that examined allegations of fraud against Ranjit Kumar Chandra, a nutrition researcher. [1] The documentary claimed to have “uncovered a pattern of scientific fraud and financial deception dating back to the [1980]s.” It also accused him of using “a fake name to write a paper that bolstered his work.” [2]

In 2011, Chandra brought a lawsuit with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against CBC for defamation and invasion of privacy. He sought 123 million dollars in damages. [3]

[1] iMediaEthics, CBC Didn’t Libel Nutrition Researcher with 2006 Documentary, (Aug. 17, 2015), http://www.imediaethics.org/cbc-didnt-libel-nutrition-researcher-with-2006-documentary/.

[2] Retraction Watch, Nutrition Researcher Chandra Loses Libel Case Against CBC, http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/31/nutrition-researcher-chandra-loses-libel-case-against-cbc/.

[3] Retraction Watch, Nutrition Researcher Chandra Loses Libel Case Against CBC, http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/31/nutrition-researcher-chandra-loses-libel-case-against-cbc/.

Decision Overview

Following a jury trial, the court entered judgment in favor of CBC on the grounds that the claims alleged in its documentary were true. Specifically, the allegations that Chandra had fabricated scientific results and reported them to various sources were found to be factually true. This was in line with the claims in the documentary. The jury also rejected Chandra’s invasion of privacy claim.

In an interim decision on the admissibility of evidence, CBC sought to introduce an interrogatory from a prior civil action brought by Chandra against Health Care Corporation of St. John’s and its employee for allegedly removing data and other records relating to a research study conducted by him. The Court allowed the introduction of the interrogatory. It found that even though the employee whose interrogatory sought to be admitted was not a party to the current litigation, she still remained a key witness in the case. It also found that the interrogatory was admissible under the general inclusionary rule of evidence.