King et al. v. Power, (2015) 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285 (NLTD(G))

• Judge: Goodridge, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285 (NLTD(G))

King v. Power (2015), 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285 (NLTD(G));

    1136 A.P.R. 285

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MR.033

Robert King (first plaintiff), Danielle Rideout (second plaintiff), 58458 Newfoundland & Labrador Corp. (third plaintiff) and 57971 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc. (fourth plaintiff) v. Ken Power (defendant)

(201401G2268; 2015 NLTD(G) 32)

Indexed As: King et al. v. Power

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Goodridge, J.

March 10, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, in the context of a defamation action, applied for orders to compel Facebook and Twitter to provide certain information to assist the plaintiffs in identifying the anonymous person behind two social media accounts. In particular, the plaintiffs sought disclosure of specific times and dates, internet protocol (IP) addresses and all other user or subscriber information associated with the accounts. The defendant opposed the application.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the plaintiffs' application.

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents related to or relevant and material to matters in issue - [See second Telecommunications - Topic 3545 ].

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - [See second Telecommunications - Topic 3545 ].

Telecommunications - Topic 3545

Internet (World Wide Web) - Internet service providers and site operators - Disclosure of information (incl. internet protocol addresses) - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), reviewed the principles applicable in determining whether to order disclosure of information intended to identify anonymous users of the internet - See paragraphs 17 to 23.

Telecommunications - Topic 3545

Internet (World Wide Web) - Internet service providers and site operators - Disclosure of information (incl. internet protocol addresses) - The plaintiffs, in the context of a defamation action, applied for orders under Supreme Court Rule 32.07 to compel Facebook and Twitter (non-parties) to provide certain information to assist the plaintiffs in identifying the anonymous person behind two social media accounts - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the plaintiffs' application because they failed to provide any evidentiary foundation to establish relevance of the information sought - The court opined, however, that had the plaintiffs named a John Doe defendant, and claimed damages for defamation against that unknown person, then it would have ordered disclosure of the IP addresses corresponding to the relevant postings, but not the other user or subscriber information - See paragraphs 13 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Dea v. Tarehin (1899), 8 Nfld. L.R. 224, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Spencer (M.D.) (2014), 458 N.R. 249; 438 Sask.R. 230; 608 W.A.C. 230; 2014 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 18].

Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier et al. (2010), 261 O.A.C. 245; 100 O.R.(3d) 648; 2010 ONSC 2126 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

BMG Canada Inc. et al. v. John Doe et al. (2005), 334 N.R. 268; 2005 FCA 193, refd to. [para. 20].

A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc. et al. (2010), 293 N.S.R.(2d) 222; 928 A.P.R. 222; 2010 NSSC 215, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Nfld. & Lab.), Supreme Court Rules, 1986, rule 32.07 [para. 13].

Supreme Court Rules (Nfld. & Lab.) - see Rules of Court (Nfld. & Lab.), Supreme Court Rules.

Counsel:

Jude W. Hall, for the plaintiffs;

Kimberly J. Mackay, for the defendant.

This application was heard on January 21, 2015, in St. John's, N.L., before Goodridge, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following decision on March 10, 2015.