2 total
Internet providers may recover only reasonable Norwich compliance costs.
The Court allowed the appeal and held that an Internet service provider may recover reasonable costs required to comply with a Norwich order, but not costs tied to obligations already imposed by the statutory notice and notice regime under ss. 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act.
Because the record did not permit a proper allocation between recoverable and non-recoverable work, the matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the reasonable quantum, with Rogers permitted to adduce fresh evidence.
Appeal dismissed; insurer obtained indemnity costs order against the appellant.
The appellant challenged a trial judgment arising from a scam in which the plaintiff and an insurer both suffered loss, arguing the award against him should be set aside or reduced.
The court held that, despite some uncertainty about the trial judge's appreciation of the chronology, the findings concerning the appellant's knowledge of the fraudster's failures and his failure to communicate that information supported liability for the plaintiff's loss.
The court also rejected the argument that findings of reasonable reliance and contributory negligence were incompatible on the facts.
Leave to appeal costs was granted to the insurer, and the insurer obtained an order requiring the appellant to indemnify it for its costs of defending the main action and pursuing its cross-claim.
