When anonymity is set aside to avoid impunity

2009-01-01

WHENANONYMITYISSETASIDETOAVOIDIMPUNITY

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDCLÉAIAVARONE-TURCOTTE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

PRECIS:InYorkUniversityv.BellCanadaEnterprises[2009CanLII46447(ON
S.C.)],TheOntarioSuperiorCourtofJusticegrantedYorkUniversityaNorwich
orderrequiringBellCanadaEnterprises(“Bell”)andRogersCommunicationsInc.
(“Rogers”)todiscloseinformationnecessarytoobtaintheidentityoftheanonymous
author(s)ofdefamatorye-mailsandwebsitepostings.

OnJanuary26
th,2009,YorkPresidentMamdouhShoukriannouncedthatProfessor
MartinSingerhadbeennamedtheinauguraldeanofthenewFacultyofLiberalArts
&ProfessionalStudieslaunchedonJuly1
st,2009.Inreactiontothisnomination,an
anonymousgrouporindividual(s)identifiedas“YorkFacultyConcernedaboutthe
FutureofYorkUniversity”(“YFCFYU”),sentonFebruary3
rdane-mailto
undisclosedrecipientswhichstatedthatthisappointmentconstitutednothingless
thanan“outrageousfraud”.AccordingtotheYFCFYU,MartinSinger,although
describedinthePresident’spressreleaseas“arenownedscholarofChinese
history”,wasneitherrenownednorascholar,butratherunpublishedandunheardof.
Therefore,forSinger’sdetractors,thispromotionwas“ascandalandadisgraceto
theacademicprofession”,“aninsulttotheYorkcommunityandathreattothe
academicreputation”oftheUniversity.Thesestatementswererenewedlaterby
meansofadditionale-mailsandapostontheInternet.Itistobenotedthat
ProfessorDavidNoble,towhomtheinitiale-mailreferredpeopleformore
information,didnotrespondtoseverallettersandtelephonecallsfromYork’s
generalcounselrequesting,amongstotherthings,theidentityoftheindividuals
involvedinYFCFYU.Yorkthereforeturnedtothetribunalstoobtainsuch
informationusingtheexpedientofaNorwichorder.

JusticeStrathyfirstrecalledthatthisorderwasintroducedbytheHouseofLordsin
NorwichPharmacalCo.v.CommissionersofCustomsandExcise([1974]A.C.133
(H.L.)).Thiscase,assummarizedbythejudge,heldthat“whereapersonbecomes

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.CléaIavarone-Turcotteis
anarticlingstudentwiththefirm.Publishedinthe2009-10-14issueofWorldMediaLawReport.
Publication328.074.

2
involvedinthetortiousactsofothers,eveninnocently,thatpersonhasadutytogive
fullinformationtotheinjuredparty,bywayofdiscovery,todisclosetheidentityof
thewrongdoer”.Withthisorder,Yorkwasthereforeaimingatwhatisreferredtoby
JusticeStrathyasa“pre-actiondiscovery”,inordertoproperlyidentifythe
defendantsinanactionforlibel.CitingtheCourtofAppealofOntarioinGEAGroup
AGv.VentraGroupCo.[2009ONCA619]theJudgethenstatedthattheNorwich
orderwas“anequitable,discretionaryandflexibleremedy”,butalsoan“intrusive
andextraordinary”onethatmustconsequentlybeexercisedwithcaution.The
allowanceofthisreliefwouldindeedoccuronlyiftheapplicantmetspecificcriteria
setoutbytheCourtofAppealofOntariointheGEAGroupAGdecision,cited
above.
Firstoff,itwasnecessarytoestablishthattheapplicanthadprovidedevidence
sufficienttoraiseavalid,bonafideorreasonableclaim.TheCourtheldthatYork’s
claimwasindeedreasonable,sincetheUniversitydemonstratedaprimafaciecase
ofactionabledefamation.Infact,areasonablychargedjurycouldcertainlyfoundthe
statementscontainedinthee-mailsandtheInternetpostharmfultoone’s
reputation.Secondly,theapplicanthadtodemonstratethatthethirdpartyfrom
whomtheinformationwassoughtwassomehowinvolvedintheactscomplainedof.
Here,theCourtexpressedtheviewthateventhoughBellandRogerswerecertainly
notliableforYFCFYU’swrongfulacts,theywerenot“merewitnesses”,asthey
providedthe“conduit”forthecommunicationofthee-mails.Inotherwords,without
theinternetservicesprovidedbythem,thee-mailsatissuecouldnothavebeen
sentatall…Thirdly,YorkhadtoprovethatBellandRogersweretheonly
practicablesourceoftheinformationavailable.Thisdemonstrationwaseasilydone,
sinceProfessorNoble,theonlyotherpotentialholderoftheinformationsought,
refusedtorevealit.Asforthefourthcriterion,itdealtwiththecostofcompliance:
canthethirdparty–here,BellandRogers-beindemnifiedforcoststowhichitmay
beexposedbecauseofthedisclosure?Inthecaseatbar,theanswerwasyes,the
applicanthavingagreedtopaythesecosts.
Finally,thelastcriterion,themostdiscussedofthefive,requiredthattheinterestsof
justicefavouredobtainingthedisclosure.Thisexaminationcalledforabalance
betweenthebenefittotheapplicantofrevealingtheinformationagainstthe
prejudicetotheallegedwrongdoerinreleasingthissameinformation.This,
accordingtotheCourt,demandedtotakeintoconsideration“thenatureofthe
informationsought,thedegreeofconfidentialityaccordedtotheinformationbythe
partyagainstwhomtheorderissought,andthedegreetowhichtherequestedorder
curtailstheusetowhichtheinformationcanbeput”.Onthematterofconfidentiality,
theCourtpointedoutthatbothBellandRogershadprivacypoliciesexplicitly
warningtheircustomersthattheirrighttoprivacywasnotanabsoluteone.Personal
information,otherwiseconfidential,couldthereforeberevealedinlimitedsituations,
ifnecessary.Furthermore,bothhadserviceagreementswiththesecustomers-
serviceagreementstowhichthesaidcustomersgavetheirconsent-limitingtheir

3
reasonableexpectationsofprivacyincertaincircumstances.Moreover,these
serviceagreementscontainedan“AcceptableUsePolicy”prohibitingtheuseofthe
servicesofferedinordertodefame.
TheCourtalsoleanedonSection7(3)(c)ofthePersonalInformationProtectionand
ElectronicDocumentsAct[S.C.2000,c.5],whichauthorizesthedisclosureofsuch
informationbyanorganization,forinstanceaserviceprovider,withoutitscustomers’
consentinordertocomplywithacourtorder.TheJudgefinallymentionedthatthe
disclosureoftheinformationwasrequiredinthecaseatbarforthelimitedpurpose
ofenablingtheplaintifftocommencelitigation.Alsoinfavourofthegrantingofthe
orderwasthefactthatwithouttheinformationpossessedbyBellandRogers,York
wouldquitesimplybewithoutaremedy.
Forthereasonsdiscussedabove,JusticeStrathythereforegrantedtheNorwich
order.
Interestinglyenough,YFCFYUhasreactedtotheorderbyyetanotherpostonthe
internet,consistinginawarningthatpartiallyreadsasfollows:“Ifyousendan
anonymousemailthatexposeswrongdoingatYork,theYorkUniversity
administrationwillpayGoogle,RogersandBell,andenlisttheassistanceofthe
courtstotrytoTrackYouDown”!Toreadthewarninginitsentirety,followthislink:
http://www.ottawaactivists.org/yfcfyu/CourtOrder.html.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,

4
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)