This was asked in the comments to my earlier post. From the decision:
 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different motions judge for re-consideration based on the principles set out above.
That is to say, the motion to have FreeD turn over the IPS and email addresses of its anonymous commenters will be reheard by another judge, and Warman asked to, 1) make a prima facie case that the comments directed at him were in fact defamatory, and 2) address the freedom of expression issues raised by the motion to the satisfaction of the this new judge.
So even this part of the case does not appear to have been concluded.
Post a Comment