03/02/2020
2017 FC 114 (CanLII) | CanLII
PIPEDA. He did so by Notice of Application filed on July 27, 2015. An Amended Notice of Application was filed
on August 28, 2015.
[23]
The applicant understands that the information pertaining to his labour relations dispute continues to be
accessible through a Canadian-based website. He informed the Court during the hearing that he believes that he
requested a confidentiality order before the Labour Board but was advised that it would require the consent of the
employer, which was not provided. The essence of the applicant’s complaint is not with the publication of the
decision by the Board but with the ease of accessing the information about his case through online search engines.
[24]
The applicant also pursued a complaint through the Romanian National Supervisory Authority for
Personal Data Processing (RNSAPDP), the Romanian counterpart to the OPCC. In October 2014, the RNSAPDP
fined the respondent for contravening Romanian data protection laws. The respondent has appealed this fine to a
Romanian court. As of the date of hearing of this application, the Court was informed, those proceedings are
ongoing.
[25]
The applicant advised this Court at the hearing that he and his family in Romania have received verbal
threats for pursuing the complaint. For that reason, and because of his concern that the publication of this decision
would again expose his personal information to public attention, the applicant requested that the Court order that his
identity be protected.
[26]
As indicated above, I have acceded to his request by substituting his initials for his name in the style of
cause. In my view, this strikes an appropriate balance between the open court principle and the need to protect the
applicant’s and his family’s personal safety: A.B. v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 325,
[2009] FCJ No 386 at para 5; E.F. v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 842, [2015] FCJ
No 861 at para 8.
[27]
The applicant represented himself on this matter.
D.
The OPCC’s Investigation of Globe24h.com
[28]
In May 2014, the OPCC commenced an investigation of Globe24h.com and Mr. Radulescu under
subsection 12(1) of PIPEDA. During the course of its investigation, the OPCC communicated with the respondent
and obtained detailed information from Mr. Radulescu.
[29]
The respondent acknowledged collecting and republishing decisions from (1) judicial and administrative
tribunal websites, (2) the CanLII website, and (3) the website of the Société Québécoise d’Information Juridique
(SOQUIJ). The respondent also acknowledged republishing the decisions without the knowledge and consent of
concerned individuals or the tribunals and courts and that he was allowing the decisions to be indexed by search
engines. However, he stated that consent was not required because the website’s purpose is exclusively journalistic
and the content was already publicly available.
[30]
In late 2012, CanLII detected bulk downloading of decisions from its website from IP addresses
registered with an internet service provider named “RCS & RDS”, based in Romania. CanLII subsequently blocked
access to its website from all users of RCS & RDS. In December 2013, CanLII received complaints that decisions
posted on its website were searchable through Google using the names of litigants. CanLII’s Chief Editor examined
the content patterns published on Globe24h.com and determined that the decisions had been downloaded in bulk
from CanLII.
[31]
In January 2014, CanLII’s Chief Editor contacted the respondent to inform it of a judicially ordered
publication ban with respect to a decision reproduced on his website which required anonymity of the parties.
Globe24h.com advised CanLII about the procedure to request content removal and the applicable fee. As of May
2016, the decision remained on the respondent’s website in its original form, and not in conformity with the
publication ban.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc114/2017fc114.html
4/21