RSS FeedCan a police officer still give you a ticket if they’re not wearing their hat?
From my blog, Simon Says. Category: Police Myths
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people say that a police officer can’t give you a ticket if they’re not wearing their hat or if they did, you can get out of it if you tell the justice of the peace this in court. Well, Simon Says: WRONG!
I don’t know where this idea first came from, perhaps it’s true in some jurisdictions in the United States and people who watched too many episodes of Cops thought it was true here as well, but it’s not. Nowhere in the Highway Traffic Act does it say anything about officer’s being required to wear their hats.
The only thing that even comes close to dealing with the appearance or dress of an officer is found in Section 216 (1), which deals with the power of an officer to stop a vehicle. It says “A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.”
This just means that you have to stop your vehicle for an officer who is readily identifiable as an officer. Even without the police forage cap, you can still readily identify them by their uniform, the flashes on their shoulders, and their duty belt, not to mention the usual presence of a police cruiser. That being said, this section still has nothing to do with the issuance of tickets.
Now you know that it doesn’t matter if an officer is wearing their hat or not when they give you a ticket. So don’t make a big deal of it with the officer and definitely don’t take your ticket to court with that as the only thing you have to say to the justice of the peace – you’ll just look like an idiot and annoy the JP.
Of course, if you just obey the rules of the road, you won’t have this problem at all 
The problem with electronic books
I love my Kindle. I love this thin, light tablet that I can read both at the desk and in bed. I love the ease of getting new books, and I love when the fresh issue of The New Yorker downloads itself. I have read more books in the last year because of the Kindle, but I also paid more for books that I otherwise would have borrowed from the library. On the balance, I think ebooks are great and the way of the future, but we must watch out for some problems with those ebooks that use closed, proprietary formats.
Regardless of format, ebooks have some compelling advantages over traditional printed books. First, ebooks can last infinitely. With printed books, it is entirely conceivable that a rare, out-of-print edition will simply disappear because its physical form is weak and vulnerable to wear and destruction. Ebooks are easy to back up. The cost of making each additional copy is practically zero. Ebooks after all are computer files like Word documents or JPEG images. That’s why ebooks are also enormously portable. A thousand-volume paper-based library is to a thousand ebooks as an elephant is to a pet lizard. The publishing costs are also much lower for new books because authors create them in an electronic form, and there is no need to typeset them or to buy thousands of pounds of paper to print them. There is also no need for expensive brick-and-mortar stores with a large sales staff. Ebooks are sold or given away for free online. This is especially handy if a single corporation dominates your country’s printed book market. In fact, anyone can publish an ebook online potentially reaching millions at a relatively miniscule cost. Finally, think of all the trees ebooks save.
But there are serious problems with ebooks, mostly when they come in closed, proprietary formats. A closed format means that its owner (e.g. a book distributor like Amazon) controls what you can do with the book. The proprietary format owner can hide the details of how the format works making it more difficult to build alternative ebook readers. For example, opening Word documents with non-Microsoft software is not as perfect as opening them with Microsoft Word. But most text editors are equally good at manipulating plain text or HTML files, which are open formats. The ebook format owner can enforce its control with the law (e.g. patents) or technology (e.g. encryption). In some jurisdictions, it is also unlawful to circumvent encryption of proprietary-format media. Amazon protects many of the books it sells with such technology also known as Digital Rights Management (DRM).
Because many ebooks have closed formats, publishers appear to license books to readers rather than sell them. It’s easier to control use of a licensed electronic product than of printed, physical books. We can’t easily share proprietary-format, protected ebooks. You can’t just email an ebook you bought from Amazon to your friend. Amazon locks each protected book to the Kindle of the person who bought it. Your friend can’t read your ebook on his or her Kindle. It’s also harder to overcome regional restrictions. Before, if a publisher sold a book only in the US, you could still bring it to Canada. Now, publishers can make it harder through DRM. Publishers can also use DRM to control libraries or to exclude them from certain books completely assuming some books are available only in electronic format. You can’t easily photocopy a page from an ebook if it’s in a closed format. Of course, if it uses an open format and it’s not DRM-protected, you can copy any text from the book anywhere and any number of times taking full advantage of its electronic nature. In some cases, if the book is in a proprietary format, the publisher or distributor can even delete your book remotely. The closed format and the need to protect digital content also strips most buyers of their anonymity. You cannot buy a book online anonymously. Usually, the book distributor has a record of every book you purchase. This could chill freedom of thought in a future where all ebooks are in a closed format because people would hesitate to buy books seen as dangerous to their reputation.
Finally, closed formats live only as long as their corporate owners. As I was enjoying The Black Swan on my Kindle last night, I wondered what would happen to my copy if Amazon were to go under. The reading device would eventually break down, and its battery would stop functioning even sooner. I would still be able to read the book with Kindle software on my Mac, but if Amazon disappeared, its software would eventually stop working on future computers. At the end, I would be left with a useless file that no one can read. It’s not a huge loss for a $10 book, but what if I invested $10,000 in proprietary-format ebooks? What if some books are available only electronically and only through a single distributor in the future? Is it so far-fetched? Or is it far-fetched that a large bookseller could vanish one day? With closed, proprietary ebook formats, we could end up with a single point of failure in not so distant future endangering our investment in books and our literary heritage.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Warman v. Fournier et al: Balancing Disclosure, Privacy, and Freedom of Expression Interests in Internet Defamation Cases
While the internet provides users with an environment in which socially valuable anonymous speech can flourish, it also provides users with an opportunity to defame others behind a shield of anonymity. If these users can be identified, they may be held liable for defamation. Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the identities of these individuals are usually known only by the website or internet service provider (“ISP”) through which the statements were made, and these entities generally decline to disclose a user’s identity in the absence of a court order compelling them to do so. Faced with a growing stream of plaintiffs who seek these kinds of orders, courts have sought to craft approaches to evaluating applications for disclosure that strike an appropriate balance between the privacy interests of anonymous internet posters and the reputational interests of plaintiffs.
Yesterday, the Ontario Divisional Court released its decision in Warman v. Fournier et al, 2010 ONSC 2126 (Div. Ct.) rev’g (2009), 309 D.L.R. (4th) 227, 76 C.P.C. (6th) 155 (Ont. S.C.J.) (“Warman”). At issue was whether the disclosure provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”) automatically entitle plaintiffs in internet defamation cases to obtain the identifying information of anonymous posters from websites and ISPs, or whether courts must balance the interests of plaintiffs with the freedom of expression and privacy interests of anonymous posters. The decision is now the leading authority in Ontario for the proposition that the objectives of the disclosure obligations under the Rules must be balanced with the right of freedom of expression in internet defamation cases. This article discusses the background, holding, and implications of Warman.
1. Background
The Respondent commenced an action against the Appellants, the operators of an internet message board, and eight anonymous message board participants with respect to a series of allegedly defamatory postings. After commencing the action, the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling the Appellants to comply with Rule 76.03 of the Rules which required the Appellants to file an affidavit of documents that disclosed the email and internet protocol (“IP”) addresses of the anonymous posters in order to allow the Respondent to identify the posters and serve them with the statement of claim.
The motions judge rejected the Appellants’ submission that the Respondent was required to establish a prima facie case of defamation before disclosure could be ordered. Instead, Justice Kershman concluded that Rule 76.03 of the Rules required the Appellants to disclose all documents in their power or control and that such disclosure should be automatic upon the issuance of a statement of claim because the information was relevant and not protected by privilege.
This decision stood in stark contrast with earlier cases that offered some protection to the privacy interests of internet users by requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a bona fide or prima facie case of defamation before ordering disclosure (see: previous posting). The motions judge distinguished these cases on the basis that the Respondent was seeking to compel the Appellants to follow the Rules as required by named parties to the action, whereas the other cases involved discretionary orders for the production of documents from third parties.
2. Holding on Appeal
The Divisional Court unanimously allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a different motions judge for re-consideration, recognizing that the anonymous posters’ right of freedom of expression under the Charter should have been taken into account in considering the Respondent’s request for disclosure under the Rules. Moreover, the Court noted that the posters’ express decisions to remain anonymous gave them a reasonable expectation of privacy that weighed in their favour.
In rejecting the notion that disclosure should be automatic, the Court also expressed concern for the ease by which a plaintiff could abuse the Rules by filing claims in a spurious manner simply to identify an anonymous poster:
If disclosure were automatic, a plaintiff with no legitimate claim could misuse the Rules of Civil Procedure by commencing an unmeritorious action for the sole purpose of revealing the identity of anonymous internet commentators, with a view to stifling such commentators and deterring others from speaking out on controversial issues. For this reason, the commencement of a defamation claim does not trump freedom of expression or the right to privacy.
[Warman, at para. 33]
After surveying previous decisions, Justice Wilton-Siegel set out four considerations, aimed at preventing abuse of the Rules and respecting the privacy of internet users, that should have been considered by the motions judge in deciding whether to order disclosure under the Rules:
- whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;
- whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;
- whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and
- whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.
[Warman, at para. 34]
In concluding that plaintiffs should be required to meet a prima facie standard rather than a lower bona fide standard, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of expression and noted that there was no concern that the higher standard would deprive applicants of a remedy:
In para. 34 of BMG [2005 FCA 193], the Federal Court of Appeal expressed the concern that, in that case, imposition of a prima faciecase standard would effectively strip an applicant of a remedy because the plaintiff could not know the actual case it wished to assert against the defendants until it knew not only their identities but also the nature of their involvement in the [internet] file-sharing activities. Because the present proceeding is a defamation action, that concern does not arise. Unlike BMG, the respondent knows the details of precisely what was done by each of the unknown alleged wrongdoers.
In addition, because this proceeding engages a freedom of expression interest, as well as a privacy interest, a more robust standard is required to address the chilling effect on freedom of expression that will result from disclosure. It is also consistent with the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court that establish the relative weight that must be accorded the interest in freedom of expression. In the circumstances of a website promoting political discussion, the possibility of a defence of fair comment reinforces the need to establish the element of defamation on a prima facie basis in order to have due consideration to the interest in freedom of expression. On the other hand, there is no compelling public interest in allowing someone to libel and destroy the reputation of another, while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. The requirement to demonstrate a prima facie case of defamation furthers the objective of establishing an appropriate balance between the public interest in favour of disclosure and legitimate interests of privacy and freedom of expression.
[Warman, at paras. 41 - 42]
3. Implications
Warman represents an important recognition that while internet users’ anonymity ought not to be protected absolutely, the mere commencement of a defamation action should not give rise to an automatic entitlement to information identifying a previously anonymous poster without a consideration of the interests of privacy and freedom of expression.
Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty with respect to the degree of protection that courts will afford to anonymous posters in the future. Under Canadian law, plaintiffs have two ways to seek disclosure in internet defamation cases. Apart from identifying anonymous defendants by seeking pre-action discovery or production of relevant information under procedural rules, as occurred in Warman, plaintiffs may also bring independent actions for disclosure of the identity of anonymous defendants by way of an equitable bill of discovery known as a “Norwich order”. Norwich orders were introduced in the decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.) in which it was held that where a third party becomes involved in the tortious acts of others, that third party has a duty to disclose the identity of the tortfeasor so that the plaintiff may pursue its remedies. The Norwich factors were recently confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corporation, 2009 ONCA 619 and applied in the internet defamation context by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises (2009), 311 D.L.R. (4th) 755 (Ont. S.C.J.) (“York University”):
- whether the applicant has provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim;
- whether the applicant has established a relationship with the third-party from whom the information is sought, such that it establishes that the third party is involved in the acts;
- whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information;
- whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which it may be exposed because of the disclosure; and
- whether the interests of justice favour obtaining the disclosure.
[York University, at para. 13]
Although the second and fourth Norwich factors were not relevant in Warman because they apply only to third party respondents rather than co-defendants [see Warman, at para. 39], some of the other Norwich factors are similar to the considerations set out in Warman that are now applicable to the question of whether a court should order disclosure under the Rules. However, an important difference remains. While the approach under Warman requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a prima facie case of defamation, Norwich jurisprudence has required plaintiffs to meet the lower bona fide standard. For example, even though the plaintiff in York University managed to establish a prima facie case of defamation, the court did not require the plaintiff to demonstrate more than a bona fide case. Although Warman provides compelling reasons to prefer the higher prima facie standard where the plaintiff seeks disclosure through a Norwich order, it remains open for courts to require plaintiffs to meet the lower standard instead.
Originally posted on Defamation Law Blog
Spider-Man Thwarts Robbery in Australia
You hear about that movie about the kids that dress up as superheroes, without any superpowers? Well those kids might be on to something.
Michael Baulderstone is a 45-year-old comic book owner in Australia who dressed up in a Spider-Man costume for a promotional event at his store. He just happened to catch a shoplifter, and lucky for him the Jedi Knights were nearby to lend a hand.
The Times Online has the story:
Mingling among the customers in fancy dress — including a Wolverine, a Catwoman and someone dressed as Kick-Ass, the character from the recent British film about a hapless American teenager who creates his own superhero character to fight crime — Mr Baulderstone noticed someone acting suspiciously.
The customer, who was dressed as himself — a comic fan in an overcoat and jeans – allegedly picked up an X-Man Omnibus (worth $AU160, or £97) from the shop window display.
Okay, it’s not exactly foiling a bank robbery or defeating a super crime villain. But can you say,”I’m going to jail”?
Awards
Partners
sLaw- The Court
- British Columbia (Ministry of Education) v. Moore: Comparing Approaches to Comparator Groups in the Context of Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- So You Got Punched By a Cop: Disciplinary Action or Civil Suit? Issue Estoppel in Penner v. Niagara (Police Services Board), 2010 ONCA 616
- The ‘Return to Unanimity’ in Insite and Division of Powers Jurisprudence: Chief Justice McLachlin’s ‘Oversight’
- UofT
- UofC
- UofA
- LexMonitor
- blawg