RE:RE:Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered SH to identifyThanks Oden. The legal precedent is clear. Default Judgement against these bashers who think they can freely make defamatory comments freely - a great step in the right direction!
Can a pseudonym screen name protect you from a lawsuit?
Case Study: Theralase Technologies Inc. v Lanter
Van Krkachovski,
Partner
By Van Krkachovski
In Theralase Technologies Inc. v Lanter, the issue of whether judgement can be granted against a defendant whose identity is unknown was considered.
On a website called Stockhouse.com, online users using pseudonym screen names made derogatory comments regarding Theralase Technologies Inc. and two of its employees (“the Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiffs obtained an order requiring Stockhouse.com to provide the identities of these online users. Due to technical difficulties, Stockhouse.com was unable to produce their identities.
The Plaintiffs commenced an action and each of the unidentified defendants was served by email or through a private message on Stockhouse.com. The unidentified defendants failed to respond to the claim and the Plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgement against the 10 unidentified defendants.
The Court held that it had jurisdiction over the unidentified defendants in personam because notice to the unidentified defendants by email or private message was reasonably expected to be brought to their attention.
Damages were awarded against the defendants and costs were ordered on a substantial indemnity basis. The Judge did not specify how judgment is to be enforced against a person who is currently identified only by a pseudonym.
As this decision indicates, it will be a challenge for the plaintiff to enforce judgement until the users are identified. It may be that the Plaintiff will continue to make efforts to identify users.
Read the full decision or read other case summaries for March.
- Long fight ends in judgement to Plaintiff includes 450G interest plus costs
- Can a claim be denied due to criminal history from 20 years ago?
Oden6570 wrote: developbc wrote: Stockhouse will give you up ...bashers beware!
A judge in the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered Stockhouse Publishing Ltd. to identify a pair of users that accused Vancouver promoter Derek Ivany of being part of a "notorious thug crew," among other things. Mr. Ivany complained that the users wrote material that was clearly defamatory. He had no way of identifying them, as they posted using aliases.
RE:The captain goes down with the ship
bogdansz wrote:Are we sinking ??? :(
The internet is not as anonymous as some of these dimwits think
A judge in the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered Stockhouse Publishing Ltd. to identify a pair of users that accused Vancouver promoter Derek Ivany of being part of a "notorious thug crew," among other things. Mr. Ivany complained that the users wrote material that was clearly defamatory. He had no way of identifying them, as they posted using aliases.
The order, handed down on Jan. 6, 2022, directs Stockhouse to provide identifying information for the users "TheTexan" and "bogdansz." The information is to include names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mails, payment information or anything else that might provide the identities of the users. The judge also ordered Stockhouse to hand over the IP addresses of the users. Those addresses are unique identifiers that can lead to the users' physical locations.
Mr. Ivany previously set out the details of the posts in a petition he filed at the Vancouver courthouse on Nov. 26, 2021. He said that the two users were behind a string of messages that he first noticed in mid-2021. Among other things, the messages accused him of running a pump-and-dump with Agra Ventures Ltd., a Canadian Securities Exchange listing, he complained.
Theralase Technologies Inc. v. Lanter - McConchie Law Corporation | McConchie Law Corporation (libelandprivacy.com)