2023 QCCA 630, 2023 QCCA 630

A.B. c. Google 2023 QCCA 630 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030526-230 ( 500-17-093293-168 ) MINUTES OF HEARING WARNING: On March 28, 2023, the Superior Court (the Honourable Azimuddin Hussain), District of Montreal, has ordered a temporary ban under

article 12 of the C.C.P. prohibiting the disclosure, publication or circulation of the name of the appellant or any other information that would allow for him to be identified. DATE: May 10, 2023 THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL A.B. Mtre DAVID GROSSMAN Mtre LAURA CARDENAS ( IMK ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL GOOGLE LLC Mtre NICHOLAS RODRIGO ( Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg ) By videoconference DESCRIPTION: Application to continue a publication ban pending appeal. (Articles 12, 29, 378 and 369 C.C.P. ) Clerk at the hearing : Chloé Côté-Sauvageau Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING

11:45 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks by the judge. The respondent defers to the judge’s decision. 11:46 Submissions by Mtre Grossman. 11:47 Intervention by the judge and answer by Mtre Grossman. 11:49 Question by the judge concerning the intention of involving medias as impleaded parties in appeal and answer by Mtre Grossman. 12:01 Judgment – see page 3. 12:02 Conclusion of the hearing. Chloé Côté-Sauvageau, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT WARNING: On March 28, 2023, the Superior Court (the Honourable Azimuddin Hussain), District of Montreal, has ordered a temporary ban under

article 12 of the C.C.P. prohibiting the disclosure, publication or circulation of the name of the appellant or any other information that would allow for him to be identified. [ 1 ] The Appellant, A.B., presents an Application to Continue a Publication Ban Pending Appeal in the context hereinafter described. [ 2 ] On May 1, 2013, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (the Honourable Azimuddin Hussain) dated March 28, 2023, which granted the Appellant’s action in defamation against the Respondent, Google LLC, for its refusal to remove search results about the Appellant that it knew to be false, issued a permanent injunction against the Respondent restricted to the users located in the province of Quebec, and condemned it to pay moral damages. [ 3 ] In his notice of appeal, the Appellant submits that the judge made various errors of law, fact and mixed fact and law in refusing to award punitive damages, and asks the Court to modify the geographical scope of the permanent injunction so that it not be restricted to users of the search service offered by Google located in the province of Quebec, and he further asks the Court to order a ban on the publication, disclosure or circulation of the name of the Appellant and the names of his family members and any information that would allow for him or his family members to be identified, as well as the anonymization of same in connection with the present case. [ 4 ] The Appellant presents an application seeking an extension, while the appeal is pending before this Court, of the temporary publication ban granted by the trial judge.

According to the Appellant, “absent the granting of this extension, the Appellant’s appeal of the publication ban on the merits would become moot, and his right to appeal would become illusory”.

Failure to grant the extension would also be detrimental to him and his family. [ 5 ] Paragraph [639] of the Judgment reads as follow: [639] ORDERS a ban on the publication, disclosure, or circulation of the name of the Plaintiff and any information that would allow for him to be identified, including the names of his family members, in connection with the present case and accordingly, ORDERS the anonymization of the name of the Plaintiff and the names of his family members in any publication, disclosure, or circulation of information in connection with the present case, but this ban is valid only for a period of 45 days after the date of the present judgment. [ 6 ] CONSIDERING that the Respondent has decided not to take a position on the Appellant’s application; [ 7 ] CONSIDERING the criteria set out in Sherman Estate v.

Donovan , 2021 SCC 25 – namely, that an applicant must demonstrate that: (1) court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest; (2) the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and (3) as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects; [ 8 ] CONSIDERING the facts alleged in the Appellant’s application, more particularly the importance of protecting the Appellant’s identity, dignity and well being as well as those of his family while the appeal is pending and the fact that no alternative measures have been suggested that can adequately protect the Appellant during the appeal; [ 9 ] CONSIDERING that the benefits of an extended publication ban outweigh its negative effects; [ 10 ] CONSIDERING that, when the appeal comes before this Court on the merits, the Appellant intends to seek and argue for the issuance of a publication ban that is not limited in time, and such submission will be rendered moot if the publication ban is not extended

during the appeal; FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 11 ] GRANTS the Application to Continue a Publication Ban Pending Appeal ; [ 12 ] ORDERS a ban on the publication, disclosure, or circulation of the name of the Appellant and any information that would allow for him to be identified, including the names of his family members, in connection with the present case and, accordingly, ORDERS the anonymization of the name of the Appellant and the names of his family members in any publication, disclosure, or circulation of information in connection with the present case, until final judgment is rendered by this Court in the present court file; [ 13 ] THE WHOLE without costs.

CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A.