What I'm getting at is that what Voltage is charging in court does fit this, per the RCMP.
Thus the reason why they want to look at all your financial history (as stated in the claim). All your tax records, Bank accounts, all your banking history, what your house and car are worth, your salary etc to build a financial picture of you to see if you are living beyound your means (or to see what kind of money they can get from you, who knows). Just like the RCMP would do to you.
Would the RCMP touch this? No. Because the reality of it isn't what voltage is claiming, on a mass scale. Voltage is fishing.
Which leads to the next question...
Can someone make up things like this that they know aren't even true (if it were true RCMP would get involved).
Can they make this claim, claiming that all 2300 people are the same (this is called joinder), when in fact they aren't.
Or is voltage just trying to make stuff up to show why all 2300 should be joined and treated as one, even though we all know it isn't true?
Going back to Marc's points:
»Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.(a) the applicant must have a bona fide case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer;
They are claiming mass "commercial distribution and profiteering" of their movies.
Is this true? If it were, surely the RCMP and even Revenue Canada would be on these people licking-split.
Is the case of, "all 2300 people getting rich of their works", a bona-fide case so that Voltage will get their entire financial history (not just their names and addresses).
Is it even justified to lump all these people as one (joinder)?
Doesn't even seem realistic that all 2300 are "commercial distributors profiting"?(e) the public interests in favour of disclosure must outweigh the legitimate privacy concerns.
Does public interest really favour the disclosure of peoples info and financial records for what is clearly not a case of mass "commercial distributing and profiteering"? Or is it more of a case of a fishing expedition?
Voltages court filing (as they state it) meets the criteria for the RCMP to be involved, and also that of Revenue Canada inspectors.
I mean if the RCMP or even Revenue Canada won't step in, does Voltage thus meet the criteria of points A & E?