So, lets go through the test with this case, shall we?
1. Reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes.
2. Prima facie case of wrongdoing? Yes, until the evidence is tried anyways (which isn't required for a court order)
3. Plaintiff tried to identify the poster & unable to? Yes.
4. Public Interest favouring disclosure outweighs freedom of express & privacy... Yes.

I'm just going to respond to a few different things.. Excuse the mess. :)

The only problem is, the last 2 copytroll cases (1 which was Voltage in Fall 2011, 1 which was NGN Fall 2012), the courts accepted the plaintiff's request as to the format of the information, and ordered it as such. So there is some history here already.

They will be requesting remuneration for their costs. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever that amount may be.

This has been tested extensively, with a bunch of defamation suits.
»espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/7533···famation resulted in »webcache.googleusercontent.com/s···irefox-a
»zvulony.ca/2012/articles/interne···ostings/

Geist himself even wrote about this:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5955/135/

So, lets go through the test with this case, shall we?
1. Reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes.
2. Prima facie case of wrongdoing? Yes, until the evidence is tried anyways (which isn't required for a court order)
3. Plaintiff tried to identify the poster & unable to? Yes.
4. Public Interest favouring disclosure outweighs freedom of express & privacy... Yes.

The only thing people HAVE been able to do, is argue to stay anonymous with representation, conduct a full trial, while the judge knows who you are.

I'm sorry to say that you have no right to privacy whatsoever if libeling someone, or breaking the law (ie copyright infringement).

quote:

---

In sorting out the balance, the court relied on a legal test established in 2010 Ontario defamation case that similarly involved anonymous online postings. That case identified four factors to consider: (1) Whether there was a reasonable expectation of anonymity; (2) Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of wrongdoing by the poster; (3) Whether the plaintiff tried to identify the poster and was unable to do so; and (4) Whether the public interest 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.

In this particular instance, the court sided with the posters and refused to order the disclosure of their identities. Since the plaintiff (who has since indicated she plans to appeal) did not identify the specific defamatory words, she failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation.

---

[107] The contractual provisions in this case tend to reinforce my reliance on PIPEDA as indicative of the nature of the appellant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Like PIPEDA, the contractual terms speak both of Bell Sympatico’s duty to protect the privacy of clients’ information and its willingness to disclose information in relation to investigations involving the alleged criminal misuse of its services. That willingness clearly qualifies any duty of confidentiality assumed by Bell Sympatico. While there is no single provision in the agreement or related documents that spells out Bell Sympatico’s willingness to disclose information to the police as clearly as did the regulation under consideration in Gomboc, the overall thrust of the documentation is to the same effect. In particular, the Accepted Use Policy (“AUP”) makes it clear that uploading or downloading child pornography is a breach of the AUP and that Bell Sympatico would “offer full cooperation with law enforcement agencies in connection with any investigation arising from a breach of this AUP.” That cooperation would, it seems to me, obviously extend to the disclosure of subscriber information which, by the terms of the service agreement, could be disclosed if “[n]ecessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request ... or as necessary ... to protect ... others.”

@ JMJimmy:

With regards to TS Policy on Privacy; Name, Address and IP information fall under PIPEDA as defined on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's website:

"Your personal information includes your...

• name, race, ethnic origin, religion, marital status, educational level
• e-mail address and messages, IP (Internet protocol) address
• age, height, weight, medical records, blood type, DNA code, fingerprints, voiceprint
• income, purchases, spending habits, banking information, credit/debit card data, loan or credit reports, tax returns
• Social Insurance Number (SIN) or other identification numbers."

If you have contacted the Tek Savvy's Privacy Ombudsman and have not received a response in a timely manner (i.e 1-5 business days); I urge you to file a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and attach your original e-mail to the complaint.

As for case law (R vs Ward, see here for details: »www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2···0660.htm), you should note that was a case involving child pornography. In R vs Ward " police make this request following a protocol developed by the police and the ISPs, but without seeking or obtaining any prior judicial authorization. ". Saying that a copyright infringement case and a child pornography case are the same is stretching the word "reasonable" beyond what is actually reasonable. Here is the problem with your example of case law and where it applies in this particular unfolding case:

- Voltage Pictures (an American company) is not a law enforcement agency. While it has the right to protect it's intellectual property, it does not have the right to do so if it violates a Canadian citizen's privacy to do so. I would have to be busted selling pirated DVDs at a store with a computer with TSI internet service for them to have enough evidence to allege what they are alleging in their law suit and have a "law enforcement agency" (i.e Crown Attorney / RCMP / OPP / TPD) request the information. Requesting the information so that they can "fish" for evidence against me and use it to extort money from me with no intent to sue me (see NGN vs Does here:»New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil"?) means I have a right to expect that my privacy will be kept by Tek Savvy as Voltage Pictures demands are unreasonable (they have NO concrete evidence against any one at this point).

Here is what i'm proposing is a reasonable:

If a law enforcement agency contacts TS for the purpose of an ongoing investigation / lawsuit, then I would expect them to contact me and tell my that they must hand over my information due to a criminal investigation and I should saddle up with a lawyer.

If a third party request my information and my consent is not given, I would expect that unless I was already identified as a part of a lawsuit and the information was requested by the court to "develop reasonable and probable grounds to obtain a search warrant for the customer’s residence and computer", such requests would be denied on the grounds that they conflict with the ISP's obligation to PIPEDA and the customer's section 8 rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If law enforcement agencies must face stringent requirements to get my private personal data, third parties must face even more stringent requirements to get at it.

Case law is against you on this m3chen. R v Ward set the precedent that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy online when the ToS of the ISP allows for such disclosure. TSI's ToS/privacy policy specifically allows for this type of disclosure. In addition Voltage is not asking TSI to disclose your private logs, merely the customer's basic information (name/address/etc) associated with their logs. Such information is not protected by PIPEDA.

Edit: also, good luck getting a response from privacy@teksavvy.com - 8 days and nothing. Had TSI not been able to delay the decision until the 14th any response from them would have come too late to be of any use.

A directory is essentially a list of association between at least two data.

Name - address
Name - phone #
Name - postal code
Name - email
Name - IP

There is no directory for name/IP nor for name/email.

Again, you're ignoring the R v Ward precedent. The major difference between R v Ward and previous rulings was that the judge took into account contract law. The justice determined that because of Bhell's ToS their customers have no reasonable expectation of privacy from law enforcement or otherwise. Read Teksavvy's ToS and privacy policy. They've got the right to disclose the information (name, address, phone number, and possibly email address) without needing a court order or consent. The fact that they are insisting on a court order is admirable.

Re: filing a complaint over no response... I'll let it slide seeing as Marc has personally addressed my concerns about the lack of response and I expect a call shortly to get the issue sorted. Way way above and beyond. I could not be more impressed with Teksavvy and how they've handled the issue. I'd hate to be a Bhell/Robbers/Cogeco customer right now (or ever).

Visicalc on 200K floppies?

....also if I was TSI I'd make it difficult, and I feel like I could do that in an excel format even ;).

They specifically asked for it to be handed over in Excel format.

Except for:

I am quite certain if TSi refuses to follow a court order

The Privacy Act does not override a court order. You are taking an excerpt out of context. If a court orders TSI to produce the information then that is an overriding legal requirement that supercedes the Privacy Act.

Here is what i'm proposing is a reasonable

You would be much better off trying to corner your MP, pointing out what's going on, and asking if this is what they expected would happen when they passed bill C-11, and if not then WTF are they going to do to help us.

To all TSI customers,

If the intent of the data logs was originally intended for customer support then handing it over to Voltage Pictures would constitute a violation of Tek Savvy's customer privacy as it now is being used for purpose beyond its original intent.

unless under reasonable terms

Poor Marc. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.