The most important bit of the ruling is here. Warman gets access to
...and I'm not sure if year old IPs will help much in establishing the anonys' identity (though a few cases this can be figured out from strictly on-line sources). It occurs to me, however, that a number of these people claim to have contributed to the FreeD defense fund, and if the Fourniers are required to turn over billing details of these transactions, then that should seal the deal.
Another nice bit:
In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.
Apparently, FreeD can make you go blind.
Finally, none of this should have come as a surprise to anyone that's been paying attenion. As Judge Kershman wrote:
The fact that they're all sitting there stunned at FreeD speaks to a wilful ignorance of Canadian law and, since Connie and Mark are receiving paid/professional legal advice, speaks I think to the fact that they are playing forum members for saps.
PS. The Fourniers got dinged $5,000 by the judge for forcing this whole silly motion and hearing in the first place.