Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought subscriber information from an internet service provider to identify anonymous online defendants.

• Motion was made under Rule 30.10 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, targeting a non-party for production.

• The request involved basic IP-related subscriber data linked to an alleged online wrongful act.

• The court highlighted the distinction between Rule 30.10 orders and equitable Norwich orders.

• Associate Justice Kamal affirmed jurisdiction to issue the order under Rule 30.10 but not to grant a Norwich order.

• Plaintiff met the legal threshold to justify disclosure, having shown relevance, necessity, and a prima facie case.

Facts of the case

Ari Lesser, the plaintiff, brought a legal action against Meta Platforms Inc. (operating as Instagram), along with unidentified defendants referred to as John Doe and Jane Doe. The case arises from an alleged wrongful online act, for which the identities of some parties remained unknown. To proceed with the litigation effectively, Lesser filed a motion seeking disclosure of basic subscriber information tied to an IP address—24.51.239.147—believed to be associated with the anonymous parties.

The motion named Cogeco Connexion Inc. as a third party, requesting that it provide subscriber information connected to the IP address. This request followed a previous motion involving a petition created on Change.org, also related to the same litigation. Meta did not oppose the motion, and Cogeco indicated it would comply with the order if granted.

Court's analysis and decision

The plaintiff framed the motion under Rule 30.10 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits courts to compel non-parties to produce documents if they are relevant and necessary for the case. The plaintiff also invoked the concept of Norwich orders—equitable remedies used to identify unknown wrongdoers before litigation—but acknowledged that such relief could not be granted by an Associate Judge.

Justice Kamal clarified that while he lacked jurisdiction to issue a Norwich order, he did have authority under Rule 30.10 since the case was already underway and the request was made through a motion, not a standalone application. He drew a distinction between Norwich orders, which are pre-action and equitable, and Rule 30.10 orders, which operate within active litigation under civil procedural rules.

Referring to prior case law, including Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Doe, the court emphasized that a party requesting disclosure from an internet service provider must present a prima facie case and show that the information is materially relevant. In this instance, the court found the information to be both relevant and necessary. The plaintiff demonstrated an inability to identify the unknown defendants without Cogeco’s disclosure, making it unfair to proceed to trial without it.

Outcome

The court granted the motion under Rule 30.10, ordering Cogeco to produce the basic subscriber information related to the specified IP address. Justice Kamal concluded that all legal criteria were met and that the request did not impose unfairness on Cogeco. This outcome supports plaintiffs seeking to unmask anonymous online actors when sufficient evidentiary grounds exist within an ongoing civil proceeding.