The decision, published online this week, followed a hearing in June in which Facebook argued that the claim should be dismissed because it was “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,” Judge John J. Steeves wrote.
THE CHEAT PAGE
The claim was originally filed by Timothy Craig Durkin, a Vancouver Island resident, in 2020. In March of that year, a summary included in the decision says Durkin was informed that there was a Facebook account using his identity “without the knowledge or his consent.” Because Durkin himself did not have an account on the platform, he asked friends and others to report the account online. Durkin, on the other hand, said he followed the process for non-Facebook users to report these types of accounts. “Upon clicking the ‘Submit’ button, the Claimant received a pop-up window stating ‘Your request could not be processed. There was a problem with this request. We are working to fix this as soon as possible,” the court documents say. For the next three months, Durkin said, he tried that option to no avail. It also claims that Facebook users who reported the account did not receive a response. On July 21, 2020, Durkin’s claim says he sent a letter to the company’s CEO in Canada “outlining the identity theft and requesting that the fraudster’s page be taken down from the social network,” the court heard. When the lawsuit was filed the following month, no response had been received. Durkin’s claim alleges that the company “acted recklessly, negligently and willfully” by allowing the “fraudulent account to be created without verifying the identity of the account holder and allowing it to remain online despite requests to have it removed.” “The relief sought in the plaintiff’s claim includes aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of $50 million, the removal of the impostor page and the disclosure of the identity of the person or persons responsible for creating the impostor page,” Steeves wrote. Defendants Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) and Facebook Canada Ltd. they have denied all claims and have not been tested in court.
FACEBOOK IS APPLICABLE FOR CASE DISMISSAL
They asked that the claim be dismissed under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-5, which allows a court to dismiss all or part of a claim on four grounds, including that the case has no prospect of success and that the claim is an abuse of process. Durkin argued that any problems with his claim were due to the fact that he is not a lawyer and represents himself. Steeves eventually – but tentatively – sided with Durkin. “I do not agree with defendants that the claim does not disclose a reasonable claim, is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, is likely to prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or otherwise. abuse of the Court’s process,” he wrote. “The claim has its difficulties, certainly, but I cannot at this stage conclude that it is certain to fail.”
THE CLAIM MUST BE AMENDED
The judge did find issues with the lawsuit, namely that the four elements required for a negligence claim were not described, nor were the ways in which the company allegedly violated privacy laws. Durkin will be able to amend his claim to include this evidence. “In my view, it is quite clear that the plaintiff is saying that the defendants acted negligently and in violation of privacy laws when they used their platform to post information in the name of the plaintiff and allowed someone else to open an account in his name , all without authorization,” the court heard. “It further says that the defendants were negligent in failing to remove the impostor for five months.”
ADVERTISING SCAM?
Durkin’s case was reported in the media, and the company argued that the $50 million claim was a “publicity stunt” and an abuse of process serious enough to warrant a claim. Although Durkin expressly used the phrase “to attract media attention” in one of his responses to the company, the judge was not persuaded that this was sufficient to establish the claim itself or that the damages sought were ” burdensome or abuse of judicial process.” Durkin also said that after months of trying to remove the fake account, media exposure resulted in it being removed “within minutes”, the court heard.
COURT HISTORY
Steeves’ ruling noted that while Durkin does not have an attorney in this case, “significant qualification is required when describing him as self-represented in the infinite sense,” noting his involvement as a litigant in seven other trials. Facebook argued that the way Durkin conducted himself in other cases illustrated a pattern of “willful and willful noncompliance with the rules and orders of this court,” according to the ruling, which noted that Durkin was found in one that he was “evasive, combative, deliberately vague and often dishonest”. Steeves also said one case Durkin had brought was dismissed under Rule 9-5, and in another, a judge found a false affidavit was sworn. “I am not sure that defendants’ contention goes that far, but I do not conclude that plaintiff’s conduct in prior cases is by itself barred from proceeding with the claim at issue,” he wrote. “Should the plaintiff’s conduct as depicted in previous cases reoccur, then the defendants may respond with appropriate court applications.”
