I blogged last year about Voltage’s troubling test case effort to get a default judgment against dozens of alleged infringers all at once identified through aggressive investigation and Norwich orders.
could, if Voltage’s procedural tactic succeeds, quickly become many thousands
at several thousand dollars each. In this test case, Voltage was seeking
staturory damages of $2,250 to $5,000 plus costs from each defendant
caught in the drift net.
intervened in this proceeding. Voltage was dealt a serious setback by the
Federal Court in a well-reasoned order by Justice Furlanetto dated June 6, 2022.
Holdings, LLC v. Doe#1, 2022 FC 827 (CanLII),
Not surprisingly, Voltage has appealed. CIPPIC has
been given leave to intervene in the appeal.
Here is Voltage’s Memorandum of Fact and Law
for the appeal.
There’s a lot at stake here. If these mass default
proceeding tactics are sanctioned by the Court, we will almost certainly see a
parade of thousands of default judgments in dozens or more cases involving up
to $5,000 in statutory damages against each and every defendant – whether
of not each defendant actively downloaded, simply had their Wi-Fi used by
someone else (e.g. teenage kid, babysitter, neighbour, tenant, etc.) or were
This would be unacceptable and would require a
Also, not to be forgotten, is the so-called “reverse”
class action against Mr. Robert Salna, a landlord who happened to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time and is being forced to defend this very complex test
case, which still grinds on in the Federal Court as action #T-662-16 - now with several intervenors.
PS - October 30, 2022: Here's is CIPPIC's very well researched intervener factum dated October 28, 2022
in Voltage's appeal.