Saskatchewan court orders SaskTel to relinquish info related to 'victimsvoicesregina' Instagram account
A court has ordered SaskTel to hand over information that a man was seeking in an effort to identify people he says are responsible for defaming him on a former Instagram account known as 'victimsvoicesregina.'
The bottom-line decision from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was made on May 8, but the court's published reasons for that ruling were recently made available online.
The decision is from a panel comprising Justice Georgina Jackson, Justice Meghan McCreary and Justice Keith Kilback. It lays out how Ryan Boldt filed a lawsuit in 2021 against Meta Platforms, Inc., as well as three unknown individuals listed within the court documents as Jane Doe, Betty Doe and Sally Doe (the Does).
Meta owns and operates social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.
The appeal decision indicates that Boldt alleges 'the defendant, Betty Doe, created a false and defamatory story that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Boldt in the course of her employment.'
He further asserts, according to the decision, that this story was then given to Jane and Sally, who were the administrators of the victimsvoicesregina account, on which it was published 'without taking any steps to verify the accuracy of the Post or the associated comments made by others on the page.'
In 2020, the victimsvoicesregina Instagram account posted many stories of alleged sexual assault and harassment that were said to have taken place within the city.
'Mr. Boldt claims that he suffered damages because of the defamatory Post, which he quantifies at $1,000,000,' the decision states, noting he also seeks punitive and aggravated damages.
However, it goes on to say that Boldt doesn't know the true identities of the Does. For the lawsuit to proceed against them, they have to be formally notified of it, which would require Boldt to determine who they are.
For that purpose, he's gone through the courts in an effort to gain information from SaskTel, Telus Communications Inc., and Access Communications Co-operative Limited.
The decision notes a 'cyber security investigator' was hired on Boldt's behalf. The investigator wrote an affidavit stating that, through information provided by Facebook Inc., he learned that the Does accessed the victimsvoicesregina Instagram account through those internet service providers.
Stories of the Year: Survivors' Stories shed light on Regina's problem with sexual violence
Boldt sought a court order directing the companies to provide 'Identifying Documents' relating to specific activity from certain IP addresses (numeric addresses assigned to devices connected to the Internet). He was looking for documents containing: 'account holder name(s); account holder address(es); account holder billing information; account holder email addresses; physical addresses related to IP addresses; and any other identifying information.'
The appeal decision states that while Telus and Access took 'no position' with respect to Boldt's application for such an order, SaskTel opposed it, arguing among other things that the documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Boldt narrowed his application to seek only those documents contained within a SaskTel legal file relating to another case. The decision notes this was presumably done because SaskTel stated it didn't 'possess, have custody of, or control of' any such documents other than those which might be on that file.
A lower court judge had previously dismissed Boldt's application, finding that the documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege, but Telus and Access were ordered to disclose their documents.
On appeal, the three judges of Saskatchewan's highest court decided the lower court judge's decision with regard to SaskTel contained multiple legal errors.
SaskTel did not tender evidence to establish the documents would be covered by privilege, and the onus was on the telecommunications company to do so, according to the appeal decision.
Further, even if the information was privileged, that would not have legally precluded its disclosure, so long as certain conditions could be met, the appeal decision states.
The appeal judges ordered SaskTel to give Boldt the documents.
However, the decision goes on to specify that the documents 'shall be held by him and his solicitors in the strictest confidence and shall be used by them only for this specific litigation in which they were obtained.'
The Regina Leader-Post reached out to Boldt through his lawyer, Madlin Lucyk. She advised that Boldt was not interested in providing any comment.
bharder@postmedia.com
The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe. With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Missouri's Historic Abortion Victory Is Crumbling Before Our Eyes
Just a few months ago, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure to protect abortion rights. That measure, known as Amendment 3, added a 'reproductive freedom' amendment to the state constitution. It was crafted to offer stronger legal protections for abortion than existed under Roe v. Wade, according to campaigners, and to end the state's near-total abortion ban, which had been triggered by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe. Those who voted for it believed that the amendment would allow them to override such past anti-abortion court rulings and to block anti-abortion lawmakers' future efforts—in essence, to reclaim their own rights and political voice. But as of May 27, by way of a two-page order from the state's Supreme Court, the abortion ban voters had been told they defeated was back. The ruling came as a 'surprise' to pro-choice and anti-abortion groups alike, the Missouri Independent reported this week. With it, the Supreme Court of Missouri has effectively allowed the state to enforce a raft of anti-abortion laws that had been challenged by two Planned Parenthood affiliates, which argued that such laws now violated the state constitution, thanks to Amendment 3. After last week's ruling, Planned Parenthood health centers in the state—Missouri's only abortion clinics—canceled upcoming appointments and advised patients that they could instead go to neighboring Kansas or Illinois, where abortion is legal. For now, those patients, and any Missourian who needs an abortion, have found themselves right back where they would have been had Amendment 3 never been on the ballot. The sudden loss of abortion access is an inarguable blow for Missouri's reproductive rights movement. But it's also something more troubling: a sign of flaws in the post-Roe strategy chosen by large national reproductive rights groups like Planned Parenthood and state chapters and affiliates of such groups, including the ACLU and Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL). For these groups, abortion rights ballot measures have been seen as a path forward in a hostile legal environment, a way to restore access without relying on the courts. Campaigns would go direct to the people, giving energized supporters a tangible goal to work toward, along with some optimism, amid an otherwise crushing assault on reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. The speed with which Missouri's ballot measure has gone from being a historic victory to yet another legal battle reveals that such election night wins may prove to be far more qualified and complicated to hold onto than campaigners had hoped. For some advocates in Missouri who had worked on Amendment 3, however, there was nothing all that surprising in the state Supreme Court's ruling. They saw it as a reality check. 'There is no way to responsibly sugarcoat what's playing out in the state,' the What's Next for Missouri coalition told me in a statement from the group. The coalition was founded by longtime Missouri reproductive justice advocates, as well as former staff of Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri who quit over their concerns about the ballot measure. 'Amendment 3 was a limited and symbolic win,' the coalition said. 'In reality, it has failed to protect pregnant people's bodily autonomy. Inaccessible abortion is just the tip of the iceberg.' Voters in Missouri may have declared that abortion was their constitutional right, but abortion was not going to return overnight to Missouri. In November, state Attorney General Andrew Bailey offered his legal opinion on which anti-abortion laws might still be enforceable. After stating that Amendment 3 'just barely' won by a 'tight margin,' he opined that 'the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote,' and detailed circumstances in which he believed some of the laws could still be enforced. In other words, he was not going to accept that Amendment 3 automatically invalidated state anti-abortion laws—and to be fair, the Amendment 3 campaign seems to have anticipated just such a reaction. Not long after the election, the two Planned Parenthood affiliates that have health centers in Missouri challenged many of those laws as 'presumptively unconstitutional,' citing Amendment 3. Their petition, filed in the circuit court of Jackson County by Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, also requested that the court temporarily block such laws while the case played out. That included the total abortion ban triggered after Roe, as well as laws meant to restrict abortion access even if it were not technically banned, such as mandatory waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds. In a pair of rulings in December and February, Judge Jerri Zhang granted the affiliates' request for a temporary injunction on most of those laws, after which Planned Parenthood clinics in Missouri began to offer abortion again, with significant limits: only procedural abortion up to 12 or 13 weeks, no medication abortion, in just three clinics across the entire state, operating at limited capacity. Other restrictions remained, including some that were not part of Planned Parenthood's challenge. Mandatory parental involvement laws were later challenged by the practical abortion support organization Right By You, in April. There were also restrictions that Amendment 3 did not touch: The ballot measure allows for abortion to be banned past fetal viability, the legal line after which a fetus is thought to be able to survive independently. This means that people having later abortions were left out of the promises of Amendment 3 from the start. Missouri Attorney General Bailey appealed Judge Zhang's decision, seeking to block abortion in the state during the court challenge—an appeal enabled by a new law giving the state attorney such power to sue to halt injunctions, signed just days before. Meanwhile, the Missouri General Assembly voted to put a new abortion ban on the ballot, an effort to overturn Amendment 3. The constitutional right protecting abortion that voters believed they had succeeded in installing was being rapidly undermined across multiple fronts—by the state attorney general, in the courts, and in the legislature. This legal undermining depends in part on voters not knowing that it's even happening. The proposed anti-abortion ballot measure language did not refer to Amendment 3, nor to banning abortion, hiding its ban behind claims of ensuring women's 'safety during abortions.' For good measure, it added a ban on gender-affirming care for minors—care that is currently banned in the state. Democrats in the state legislature had tried to block the anti-abortion ballot measure proposal from advancing, but Republicans broke their filibuster with 'a rare procedural maneuver to shut down debate and force a vote on a measure that would repeal Amendment 3,' as St. Louis Public Radio reported. Amendment 3 campaign leaders forcefully denounced both the new ballot measure and the legislature's underhanded attempt to reverse the will of Missouri voters. 'This deceptive amendment is a trojan horse to reinstate Missouri's total abortion ban,' Tori Schafer, director of policy and campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. At protests on the steps of the state Capitol in Jefferson City, Amendment 3 supporters were now fighting to hang onto their victory, as they have had to many times this session. 'This past November, more than 1.5 million Missourians made their voices heard at the ballot box,' Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said. 'Missourians are used to fighting back and are prepared to keep showing up.' Two weeks later, abortion access in the state would be all but nonexistent again, after Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Russell ordered Judge Zhang to vacate her temporary injunction and to reevaluate the Planned Parenthood affiliates' request, this time using a stricter standard. The ACLU of Missouri, which is co-counsel in the legal challenge, told The New Republic that it had 'immediately' responded to the order by sending correspondence to the court, 'highlighting that our arguments met this standard.' Tom Bastian, ACLU of Missouri director of communications, added that while the group 'can't predict when the court will act, we anticipate new orders … granting the preliminary injunctions blocking the ban and restrictions, once again allowing Missourians access to abortion care.' For now, then, those Missourians will be doing what they did before election night, before Dobbs: going out of state or self-managing their abortion with pills. In this, the reality for abortion in Missouri looks a lot like it did back when the near-total ban passed. The difference is that now more than $30 million has been spent on a ballot measure meant to reverse that ban. As the legal scholar Mary Ziegler pointed out this week, it is possible that Missourians' abortion rights will prevail, that Planned Parenthood will get its injunction, or even that the new anti-abortion ballot measure may fail. However, as she wrote, 'what is happening in Missouri is still a sign about the limits of ballot measures.' Advocates in other states should be asking: What is such a 'win' worth? The legal battle over Amendment 3 is nothing new, as Planned Parenthood's initial filing in this legal challenge acknowledged. 'The State of Missouri has spent decades attempting to eliminate or severely reduce abortion access,' its petition stated. 'This means that Plaintiffs have spent decades challenging these laws.' The lengths that Missouri lawmakers have been willing to go since the election, unfortunately, indicate that this is not a fair fight in fair courts. 'It's time for simple honesty,' What's Next said to me this week. People will have unreliable and irregular access to abortion 'until we shift power away from fascist politicians.' The reality is that this fight for the constitutional right to abortion was playing out at the same time that our constitutional rights were being ignored and undermined on a regular basis. Before we fundraise millions more dollars to replicate the fight in other states—fundraising that will be justified as 'restoring' access to abortion by making it a right—we might consider other, more immediate ways to give people what they need. That money might be better spent on paying for actual abortions, as abortion funds across the country do, helping people in the many states with abortion bans to access care. In a legal system that cannot be counted upon, there may be no more direct way of supporting a fundamental right.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Got a scam DMV text? How they got your number
(WAVY) — Did you get a text this week from someone alleging to be the Department of Motor Vehicles? After a swarm of scam texts, you may be left wondering how your personal information fell into malicious hands. Nexstar's WAVY went looking for answers. It turns out, you may have handed over your information willingly, but unknowingly. Lena Cohen works with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Cohen said it's likely your information was unknowingly sold for profit. 'We want to make sure that the rights you have offline come with you when you use the Internet,' Cohen said. 'We live in a country without a comprehensive federal privacy law, so your personal data has been freely harvested and sold for a long time.' It has become a bigger issue for all consumers. There are three main ways your information can get into the hands of what are called 'data brokers,' including public records, loyalty programs or commercial transactions, and digital footprints or cookies. Data brokers take your information and sell it to other people like a product. From there, it can be used in a variety of ways. Phone numbers, relatives, your location history, and more are sold — all up for sale by data brokers who collect it from the places you'd least expect. 'They do collect data from public records like marriage records, housing records,' Cohen said. 'They collect data by scraping social media sites. They also buy data from other companies, grocery stores, retail stores. Even credit card companies have been caught sharing data with data brokers.' If you think the extent of you're information being bought, sold, or leaked is a spam text, you're wrong. Experts said this secretive broker industry is considerably dangerous, specifically for national security. To prove a point, in 2023, researchers at Duke University purchased huge amounts of data from brokers. They set up a server in Singapore where brokers sold private data about active-duty service members, veterans, and their families. The report's authors didn't buy mental health or location data, though that information was also for sale. Brokers also sold bulk data for people within geofenced military facilities, such as Fort Bragg and Quantico. The pipeline of information varies depending on the initial collector of the data. 'Sometimes there are direct partnerships between apps and data brokers to collect your data,' Cohen said. 'Sometimes the connection is a little more distant. Apps share information with an advertising system, and then that advertising system, in order to select what ads to show you, broadcast a lot of information about you to a lot of potential advertisers. But a lot of those potential advertisers are actually data brokers scooping up your data, and there's nothing stopping them.' Only a handful of states are protecting users' information online by allowing residents to compel more than 500 data broker organizations to delete their information with the push of a button. You may, however, still need to secure your information on your own. 'It really just goes to show how underregulated this industry is,' Cohen said. 'We know relatively little about data brokers. Who they are, who they're selling to, what information they have about us … and they know basically everything about us.' WAVY put together a simplified tutorial for easy steps you can take right now: The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a variety of tools to help you protect your information.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Lewis Hamilton Champions Social Change in Talks with UK Prime Minister
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Seven-time Formula One world champion Lewis Hamilton has been leading several social causes, including efforts to help create a more inclusive education system. As part of his Mission 44 initiative, he met with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer, to support the government in setting up a framework that would help students succeed in schools, regardless of their background. Mission 44 was set up four years ago to help students and ensure they don't face the same challenges Hamilton experienced in his school days. The Briton also met Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson at 10 Downing Street to discuss reforms that could be introduced in the education system. The government of the UK revealed its commitment to the social cause by developing a framework that includes exploring ways to increase school funding across the board, improving mental support for students, and hiring more teachers in classrooms. Lewis Hamilton of Great Britain and Scuderia Ferrari on the grid during the F1 Grand Prix of Monaco at Circuit de Monaco on May 25, 2025 in Monte-Carlo, Monaco. Lewis Hamilton of Great Britain and Scuderia Ferrari on the grid during the F1 Grand Prix of Monaco at Circuit de Monaco on May 25, 2025 in Monte-Carlo, Prime Minister of the UK praised Hamilton's initiative after the meeting. He said: "I want to thank Lewis -- this was his idea, this is his legacy. He's inspired generations and is now using that influence on this project and is designed to make a real difference in the lives of young people across the country." Hamilton shared a post on Instagram, talking about his struggles at school and confirming the government's commitment to the initiative. He wrote: "The future of education must be inclusive. "Today, myself, @mission44, our partners, and some incredible students met with the UK Prime Minister for an important discussion on how we can make sure all young people are supported to succeed in school, regardless of their background. I struggled in school and never felt like my voice was heard, so I know firsthand that ensuring every student feels they belong in school is vital. "I'm grateful that off the back of this meeting, the government has committed to working with Mission 44 to enact change focused on making the education system more inclusive. I'm so proud of how far M44 has come in such a short space of time and the opportunity we have to transform the lives of vulnerable students across the country. "I encourage everyone to head to the Mission 44 website to find out more about today's announcement and support our work. We can create a fairer, more compassionate world, together." The Prime Minister replied to his post. He wrote: "Great to meet you today. Looking forward to working together to make sure every young person has the chance to thrive."
