The Court of Appeal in turn rejected the request for anonymity of an administrator of the “Say his name” list, which has been listing the identity of alleged sexual aggressors online since July 2020.
Posted at 4:53 p.m.
Updated at 6:18 p.m.
The highest court in the province thus confirmed on Tuesday the judgment of the Superior Court, rendered in February 2021. It also rejected the request for leave to appeal an order for the communication of the denunciations received by the administrators of DSN.
The dispute opposes the latter and Jean-François Marquis, whose name – now withdrawn – was initially on the DSN list. He criticizes them in particular that no steps were taken to obtain his version of the facts. For this, he claims $50,000 in damages and demands that their identity be revealed during the trial.
Former court illustrator Delphine Bergeron is one of two women behind the list. She voluntarily revealed her identity in September 2020 in a newspaper interview The duty.
The second administrator, however, does not want to be known. She is identified by the initials A. A. in the judgments rendered to date.
However, to maintain anonymity, a party must “demonstrate that the disclosure of his identity […] poses a serious risk to his privacy and dignity and not only affects his private interest, but also poses a serious risk to an important public interest in confidentiality,” reads the judge’s decision. Geneviève Marcotte, endorsed by judges Manon Savard and Suzanne Gagné. “This is an exceptional step”, underlines the Court.
“I find that the appellants […] have not in this case demonstrated such a threat, ”she decides.
The Press as well as CBC/Radio-Canada acted as interveners in the file in favor of the disclosure of the identity of AA
“AA maintains that her motivation behind the establishment of the DSN website and the List is linked to the fact that she was the victim of sexual assault” and that she wishes “to free the voice of the victims”, notes the judge Marcotte. “However, neither this wish, although laudable, nor its status as a victim relieves it of the obligation of due diligence or exonerates it if […] it commits a fault giving rise to responsibility with regard to the persons denounced. »
It would also be “unfair for the appellant A. A. to be able to take refuge behind anonymity, added the judge, when she was accused of having set up a process of public denunciation against alleged aggressors without due diligence. and in defiance of their reputation.
As regards the will of the DSN administrators to appeal the order for the disclosure of the denunciations, the Court rejected their arguments, considering in particular the victims protected by the redacting of their names.
However, the question could be obsolete. Mr. Marquis claims that the appellants destroyed the evidence concerned by the order, an allegation “impossible to confirm in light of the content of the evidence”, indicates the Court.