Overview:
The plaintiff, a protected witness in a criminal trial, alleged that Justice Kenneth Champagne and the Government of Manitoba breached her privacy by publishing a judicial decision on the court's website without redacting her identity, despite a publication ban. She claimed damages for threats, attacks, and business closure caused by the breach. The defendants sought to strike the claim based on judicial and statutory immunity, as well as insufficiently pleaded facts.

Key Issues:

1. Vagueness of Claim: The court examined whether the claim disclosed a valid cause of action.
2. Judicial and Statutory Immunity: The defendants argued that judicial acts and court administrative functions are immune from civil suits.
3. Fiduciary Duty: The plaintiff alleged an ad hoc fiduciary duty arose from the publication ban.

Court Analysis:
The court held that judicial immunity shielded Justice Champagne, as issuing and publishing decisions is integral to judicial duties. No facts supported claims that court staff intentionally breached the publication ban. Additionally, the relationship between the parties did not establish a fiduciary duty.

Outcome:
The statement of claim was struck against both defendants without leave to amend. The court ruled the allegations were insufficient, and the action was "doomed to fail." Costs were to be determined if not agreed upon by the parties.

Costs/Award:
The total amount of costs was not specified in the decision.