RSS FeedSpousal misconduct and support payments
Doctor must support abusive husband
Here is another example of role reversal in families, and how the law reacts to it.
Kirk Makin writes for the Globe and Mail:
A Cambridge, Ont., doctor has been ordered to pay temporary spousal support of $6,000 a month to her ex-husband despite the fact that he assaulted her in 2007 and was ordered out of Canada.
Tattoo as evidence of murder
Telltale teardrop quashes acquittal
Ontario Superior Court Justice Todd Archibald should not have barred testimony from a gang expert and three Malvern Crew members that could have bolstered the Crown’s case that Abbey had a teardrop tattooed under his right eye to show he had shot Simeon Peter, 19, the appeal court ruled.
Be Careful What You Post For
Following a trend of the erosion of privacy rights online, an Ontario couple who own a far-right website were ordered to disclose the names of eight anonymous posters related to a defamation lawsuit.
The owners of FreeDominion.ca, Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins-Fournier, were told that they would have to reveal the names of anonymous posters who attacked Ottawa anti-hate-speech activist Richard Warman. He is suing the couple, alleging that they “falsely and maliciously published and circulated” defamatory comments about him. The Fourniers argued against the disclosure saying that posters on their site behave differently under the shroud of anonymity than as if they were publicly identified.
Ontario Superior Court Judge Stanley Kershman decided that “the defendants are under an obligation to disclose all documents in their power and control.” He cited a case from 2004 in which it was stated that privacy rights must be balanced with the public interest and the rights of others. He also cited a more recent child pornography case in which the judge found that there was “no reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to ISP disclosure of customer information (this case is discussed in detail at LawIsCool here).
UofO professor Michael Geist disagreed on his blog with the argument that the disclosure of the posters’ information was essential to protection of the public interest:
Protection for anonymous postings is certainly not an absolute, but a high threshold that requires prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim is critical to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the rights of a plaintiff… and the privacy and free speech rights of the poster. … I fear that the high threshold seems to have been abandoned here.
So as the blogger wars heat up below, keep in mind while posting that you can’t always hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
