What is the complexity of a defamation case?

Although this trial was of a significant length, the number of trial days devoted to liability does not in itself demonstrate complexity. In the context of the liability cases this court typically hears, the expert evidence regarding the issue of contributory negligence was not particularly lengthy or unusually complex. The legal issues were not complex. The pertinent documents primarily comprised the police file and photographs. The record does not show that there were any pre-trial applications in relation to this issue. Nor am I able to conclude, as the court did in Lee v. Lee, 2001 BCSC 562, with respect to conceding liability in a defamation action, that it should have been plainly obvious to the defence that a claim for contributory negligence would fail.

In support of his submission on this point, the plaintiff relies on the judgment in Camaso v. Egan, 2011 BCSC 954, in which the court awarded costs on Scale C to the successful plaintiff. However, that case involved a 33-day trial with numerous pre-trial and trial applications, six examinations for discovery totaling seven days, complex questions of law, and no concession on liability. Those facts render the analysis in that case distinguishable.