A 15-year-old sought an order requiring an internet provider to identify the creator of a fake sexualized profile and asked to proceed anonymously with a publication ban.
The Court held that objective harm to children from cyberbullying can justify anonymity without individualized evidence of specific harm.
It allowed anonymous proceedings to protect the child’s privacy and access to justice.
It declined to ban publication of non-identifying profile content because open court and press freedom outweighed further restriction once identity protection was in place.
The Court also set aside prior costs orders against the appellant and made no costs order in the Court.
