May 3, 2010

Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, 2010 ONSC 2126

Case Summary

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the administrators of a message board and several anonymous John Doe defendants. The plaintiff successfully moved for an order requiring the administrators to disclose the e-mail and IP addresses of the anonymous defendants. The administrators appealed. The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a disclosure order engages Charter values such as freedom of expression and privacy, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of defamation and the court must balance the public interest in disclosure against these Charter rights.

Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier et al.; John Does 1-8, Third Parties

[Indexed as

Judges

Kent

Counsel

Applicant
BBarbara Kulaszka
Respondent
JJames Katz
Respondent
SStephanie Lewis

Parties

Richard Warmanrespondent
Mark Fournierapplicant
Constance Wilkins-Fournierapplicant

Areas of Law

Civil Litigation - Defendant Civil Litigation - Plaintiff Human Rights

Fact Patterns

internet defamationanonymous message boarddisclosure of IP addressesNorwich order

Financial Outcomes

Costs awarded: $10,000
Costs scale: partial indemnity

Issues

Whether the motion judge erred in ordering the disclosure of the identities, e-mail addresses, and IP addresses of anonymous John Doe defendants without considering Charter values of freedom of expression and privacy.→ allowed — motion judge erred by not requiring a prima facie case of defamation and not considering freedom of expression

Cases 18

appliedBMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, 2005 FCA 193
consideredIrwin Toy Ltd. v. Doe, [2000] O.J. No. 3318
appliedNorwich Pharmacal Co. v. Comrs. of Customs and Excise, [1974] A.C. 133
distinguishedR. v. Wilson, [2009] O.J. No. 1067
consideredYork University v. Bell Canada Enterprises (2009), 2009 46447 (ON SC)
Canada (Elections Canada) v. National Citizen's Coalition, [2003] O.J. No. 3420
GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. (2009), 2009 ONCA 619
Glaxo Wellcome PLC v. M.N.R., 1998 9071 (FCA)
Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), 1995 59 (SCC)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334
P. (D.) v. Wagg (2004), 2004 39048 (ON CA)
R. v. Cuttell, 2009 ONCJ 471
R. v. Plant, 1993 70 (SCC)
R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2
R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67
Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd. v. Hargreaves, [2007] EWHC 2375 (Q.B.)
Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, 2009 14054 (ON SC)

Statutory Provisions 3

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30.06 — further and better affidavit of documents

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

s. 2(b) — freedom of expression
s. 8 — right to privacy

Legal Tests 1

Norwich Pharmacal testNorwich Pharmacal Co. v. Comrs. of Customs and Excise, [1974] A.C. 133Applied to determine whether to order disclosure of anonymous internet users' identities, modified to require a prima facie case of defamation.