. Caplan v. Atas [see the main link for numbered case cites]
In Caplan v. Atas (Sup Ct, 2021) the Superior Court finds a new tort, that of 'internet harassment'. In this quote, the court considers (and dismisses) the argument that unpled remedies are not available, here where the plaintiff has pled for unspecified ancillary relief:
(e) Remedies Sought Not Claimed in the Statements of Claim
[235] Atas argues that various remedies sought by the plaintiffs (such as an apology, production by her of her passwords and account information to enable plaintiffs to take steps to remove Atas’ publications from the internet) are not claimed in the statements of claim.
[236] I see no merit to this argument. In each statement of claim, the plaintiffs have claimed “such further and other relief” as the court considers just. The orders sought by the plaintiffs are properly ancillary to their main claims for damages (claims which were only abandoned after Atas made her assignment in bankruptcy). Atas argues in her factums that “[h]er pleadings and steps in the action would certainly have been different with different Prayer[s] for Relief.” There is no evidence to support this assertion and Atas was unable to provide the court with any reason why she would have defended the actions differently if (for example) an apology had been claimed in the statement of claim.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
