Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why couldn't they run the whole trial and then after it's been determined compel the disclosure? The "defendant" could be represented by crown lawyers as well, I mean what other evidence could be brought forward than what was said, it seems the defence could be run without the actual John Doe.
So the $5000 to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff, is that because they refused to provide the details to begin with? It's obviously not "punishment" for allowing the comments to be posted to begin with.
Just trying to translate this decision into implications for this forum and what kinds of things could put us at risk.
|
Easy part first, the costs award has nothing to do with the outcome of the trial. By awarding costs at this stage of the process, one could draw the conclusion that the arguments for withholding the names were frivolous and that the judge feels that the point wasn't worth arguing. In that sense the Judge is punishing the forum for wasting the court's time with bad arguments. But even that may not be the case. Sometimes costs of interim applications are deferred to the outcome of the overall trial, sometimes the court just automatically awards the winner even on interim matters. The decision that Fredr123 posted may include discussion of the reasons for costs. I haven't read it yet.
As for your bigger question, there are probably a few reasons why deferring the disclosure may be a bad idea. One major one is that the Defendants may be publishing statements in other fora that should be brought into evidence. Furthermore, if there is strong enough evidence, the plaintiff could be seeking other interim relief that depends on knowing who the defendants are, such as injunctions, discovery of records, and even things like Anton-Piller orders (although in a case like this I doubt if an Anton-Piller order would be granted).
There may be other reasons I have not articulated, but this isn't really my area of expertise.