Also today, the Supreme Court announced it would release its decision next week in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. et al. on extraterritorial injunctions. Continue reading Forum Selection Clauses
It just came to my attention that an ex parte injunction against the author of allegedly defamatory works, Go Daddy as the domain name provider and Google for providing search functionality, which I previously reported, has been dissolved.
The British Columbia Court in Nazerali v. Mitchell, 2011 BCSC 1846, heard submissions on extending the injunction. The judge considered the defenses to defamation raised by the individual defendant and the breadth of the injunction in the decision.
Continue reading Ex parte injunction against author, Go Daddy and Google dissolved
In Nazerali v. Mitchell, 2011 BCSC 1581, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an interim injunction against the author of an allegedly defamatory website, the hosting company, the domain name registrar (GoDaddy) and Google (for providing a cache of the site) on an ex parte basis. Continue reading Ex parte injunction against author, Google, and GoDaddy for alleged defamation
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47. With three sets of reasons concurring in the result, the Court held that the use of a hyperlink cannot, by itself, amount to publication even if the hyperlink is followed and the defamatory content accessed.
Justices Moldaver and Karakatsanis, both currently of the Ontario Court of Appeal have been nominated for the Supreme Court. It was also announced today that the Supreme Court will release its decision in Crookes v. Newton relating to defamation liability by hyperlinking on Wednesday. Continue reading Supreme Court of Canada news
In Voltage Pictures LLC c. Mr. or Ms. DOE, 2011 CF 1024 and 2011 FC 1024 (Translation), Justice Shore of the Federal Court granted an order allowing Voltage Pictures LLC, the production company behind the movie “Hurt Locker”, to obtain the identities of alleged P2P downloaders of the movie from various internet service providers (ISPs).
In the unopposed motion, the Court considered the requirements under PIPEDA, the requirements under Rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules, and the 2005 Federal Court of Appeal decision in BMG Canada v. John Doe, 2005 FCA 193.
A Norwich order is used to obtain information from a third party necessary to identify defendants. The Ontario Superior Court in Tetefsky v. General Motors Corp., 2010 ONSC 1675 has described the order as follows:
 A Norwich Order takes its name from the Norwich Pharmacal & Others v. Customs and Excise Commissioners,  A.C. 133 (H.L.). Norwich Pharmacal knew that a patent that it owned was being infringed, but it did not know the names of the infringers. It asked the Customs and Excise Commissioners in England, who did know, for the names. After the Commissioners refused to provide the information, exercising an equitable jurisdiction associated with the ancient equitable bill of discovery, the House of Lords held that the court had the discretion to order discovery from a non-party and the Law Lords ordered the Commissioners to provide the information.
In this case the plaintiff started the action (T-1311-11) on August 24, 2011 with a statement of claim and simultaneously filed the motion under Rule 238. It is not clear from the docket if the ISPs were served with the motion, had knowledge of the motion or had agreed not to oppose the motion – none appeared at the hearing on August 29, 2011.
Voltage Pictures LLC has been involved in similar litigation against P2P downloaders in the United States over the “Hurt Locker” movie, including pursuing 5000 alleged downloaders in the United States according to media reports.