[44] Returning to the decision of the motions judge, it would appear that he did not have the benefit of the extensive submissions on these issues provided to the Court by the two intervenors in this proceeding. Notwithstanding, it is clear that he was alert to the need to take into consideration the privacy interests of the unknown alleged wrongdoers. It does not appear, however, that the need to consider the interest in freedom of expression was raised by the parties or was otherwise considered by the motions judge.
[45] In addition, the motions judge did not take into consideration whether the Respondent had established a prima facie case of defamation before ordering disclosme of the documents.
2 comments:
Well, if the legal decision is sound, more power to them. This medium will have its set of legal precedents, as miserable as it makes some of the participants in making them.
I wonder if it will climb another rung on the ladder of appeals?
A good and well argued decision which creates a reasonable bar for a plaintiff to clear.
Regardless of what you may think of Connie and Mark, they have made important and good law here.
Post a Comment