Say his name | There is no anonymity for officials, the Court of Appeal confirms

The Court of Appeal in turn rejected the request of anonymity of the director of the “Dis son nom” (DSN) list, which has been listing the identity of alleged online sexual offenders since July 2020.

Posted at 4:53 pm.
Updated at 6:18 PM.

Frederic Xavier Duhamel

Frederic Xavier Duhamel

Consequently, the district’s highest court on Tuesday confirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, issued in February 2021. It also denied a request for leave to appeal an order serving denunciations received by DSN administrators.

The dispute contrasts with the latter and Jean-Francois Marquez, whose name – now withdrawn – was initially on the DSN list. The latter reproaches them in particular that no steps have been taken to obtain his version of the facts. For this, he demands $50,000 in damages and demands that their identity be revealed during the trial.

“Of course, we are satisfied,” Mr. Marquis M’s lawyer rejoicede Pierre Hughes Miller, after reading the judgment. “For us, it is a victory along the way.”

Former court painter Delphine Bergeron is one of the two women behind the list. She revealed her identity voluntarily in September 2020 in a press interview duty. The second official, however, did not want to know. They are identified by the initials AA in the judgments issued so far.

However, to maintain anonymity, the party must “provide anonymity […] constitutes a serious danger to his privacy and dignity and affects not only his private interest, but also constitutes a serious danger to an important public interest in confidentiality”, stated the decision of Judge. Geneviève Marcotte, upheld by Judges Manon Savard and Suzanne Gagné. “This is an exceptional step”, Court confirms.

“I find that the appellants […] No such threat appeared in this case,” it was decided.

Journalism Also, CBC/Radio-Canada acted as interfering in the file in favor of revealing the identity of A. to.

“AA asserts that its motivation behind creating the DSN website and list is related to her being a victim of sexual assault” and that she wishes to “liberate the voice of victims,” Justice Marcotte notes. However, neither this desire, though commendable, nor her position as a victim of due diligence, nor does it excuse her if […] If he commits an error that gives rise to liability towards the persons he is convicted of. »

The judge added that it would be “unfair for Appellant A.A. to be able to resort to anonymity, when she was accused of launching a public denunciation against the alleged assailants without due diligence and in defiance of their reputation.”

“I think it sends a very clear message that when you want to do this kind of activity, you can’t do it anyway, you have to do it with your face uncovered,” the lady said.e Miller. Neither Delphine Bergeron nor the administrators’ attorneys responded to requests Journalism At the time of publication of this text.

Regarding the will of the DSN directors to appeal the order for notification of convictions, the court rejected their arguments, considering in particular the victims protected by the revision of their names.

However, the question can be outdated. Mr. Marquez claims that the appellants destroyed the evidence in question, an allegation that is “impossible to confirm in light of the content of the evidence”, the court notes.

Me Miller does not expect a hearing on the merits of his client’s civil lawsuit until late 2023.

#anonymity #officials #Court #Appeal #confirms

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.