De-anonymization' and 'Re-anonymization': Why Traditional Assumptions No Longer Apply

• Author: Karen Eltis
• Profession: University of Ottawa Columbia Law School
• Pages: 64-70

64

CHAPTER 4:

“DEANONYMIZATION” AND

“REANONYMIZATION”: WHY

TRADITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS

NO LONGER APPLY

Notwithstanding what was said previously, and in a sincere but at times

misguided eort to enhance access, courts and quasi-judicial bodies are

increasingly eager to digitize . Not only are individual judges (for the most

part) electing to go digital, judicia l associations such as the Canadian Ju-

dicial Council (CJC) ac tively encourage onli ne publication,1 and some

jurisdic tions legally requi re it.2

us, for instance, “Quebec has perhaps the most distinct legislative

framework of all for publication of decisions made by tribunals. Quebec

access to information law captures administ rative bodies, but, unlike

other jurisdictions, the legislat ion specica lly requires public disclosure

of tribunal decisions . . . .”3

1 David Loukidelis, “Privacy and Op enness in Tribunal Decisions” (Paper delivered

at the Canadian Bar Association, National Administrati ve Law & Labour and Em-

ployment Law CLE Conference, Ottawa, Ont ario, 22 November 2008), [Loukidelis],

online: www.oipc.bc.ca /publications/speeches_presentations/CBA-CLE_Conf_

AdminTribunalsPrivacy%284Nov08%29.pdf. At 13, Loukidelis indicated that the

Canadian Judicial Council “concluded in a 2005 publication that all judgment s

should be published on the internet to enhance access to justice and fa cilitate

legal research.”

2 That is, as in the US. See Loukidelis, ibid at 6, citing Canadian Judicial Council,

“Model Policy for Access to Court Records in Canada” (2005), at para 19, online:

www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_techissues_AccessPolicy_2005_

en.pdf

3 Loukidelis, ibid at 10.