A committee of the Canadian Judicial Council that is developing a model policy for Courts across the country has recommended that most court documents – affidavits, pleadings, motion records and the like – not be made available on the internet, even though they are public records and are available, generally for a modest fee, on paper. The recommendation arises from a concern that the information, if easily accessible, is more likely to be abused. Details are in a Globe story yesterday.
The new model policy says judgments and docket information should be universally available on the Internet as long as “personal identifiers” such as phone numbers, addresses and social insurance numbers are removed.
But it says case files should be available by remote access only to individuals and lawyers directly involved, and by special request to others such as journalists.
The recommendations are conservative, says Jennifer Jordan, registrar of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, because “the judges are going to be cautious as we go into this new electronic world.” It’s important to have some barriers, such as fees, she said, “so that you don’t have people just looking up information about their neighbours’ divorce, or that sort of thing.”
There are also concerns that personal data could be used for identity theft, that companies might analyze court data to use in marketing products, or that unproven allegations might become gossip.
Rick Broadhead is quoted as opposing the restrictions:
As long as it’s classified as a public document, people will believe they have the right to see the information,” he said. “You can’t on the one hand say, ‘We want to increase electronic access to information,’ then arbitrarily decide what information is quasi-public and what isn’t. . . . It’s either public or it’s not.
I don’t think that’s right. Digital is different – just ask the music industry. While I’m reflexively inclined to full publication, I also suspect that the people most interested in the information would be those inclined to abuse it. I’d be inclined to go slow.
Besides, who in Canada wants to end up here?
Update: the Globe launches a – well, quite virulent, actually – attack on the CJC for this decision.