I have an update regarding my appeal of the March 11th, 2022 judgment. Today marks three months since I filed my Notice of Appeal. There has been a small delay.
While we will argue that Proctorio’s entire lawsuit should have been dismissed, I would again like to emphasize that parts of the judgment are correct. Proctorio’s claim of “circumvention of technological protection measures” was found to be unsubstantiated. Proctorio’s claim of copyright infringement because I shared one screenshot from the so-called “Proctorio Academy” was also found to be unsubstantiated. Finally, Proctorio’s injunction restricting my freedom of expression was found to be overly broad, and modified to make clear that I am perfectly free to share information about Proctorio that comes from any public source.
Proctorio disagrees with what the judgment means, so on July 20th, 2022, we will return to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (via Microsoft Teams) to ask Justice Milman to clarify his order.
You can request phone access to the hearing by emailing The Honourable Bruce Cohen, Superior Courts Communications Officer, at SCJCommunicationsOfficer@bccourts.ca. My case is Proctorio Incorporated v. Ian Linkletter, file S208730, Vancouver Registry. Send your email on the morning of July 20th.
A week after the order is finalized, we will file our appeal factum. It will explain what my appeal is all about. I will publish it at https://defence.linkletter.org and send an update. This commences a 14 day period for potential intervenors to apply for leave to submit their own factums and make arguments during the hearing of the appeal.
Dr. Teresa Scassa of the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law wrote a brilliant analysis of the case and the judgment. You can read it here: https://www.teresascassa.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=351:anti-slapp-application-fails-in-remote-proctoring-lawsuit
I believe Proctorio has suffered no credible harm as a result of my tweets. Their lawsuit should have been thrown out pursuant to the Protection of Public Participation Act, and I believe it will be. Catherine Boies Parker, Q.C., Julia Riddle, and Caroline North of Arvay Finlay LLP have my full confidence.
Thank you so much for supporting me. Without you, I wouldn’t have been able to defend myself from a bullying tech company for the past 21 months. Every day this lawsuit continues, Proctorio reveals more about itself:
Proctorio doesn’t believe in freedom of speech. Proctorio doesn’t believe in academic freedom. They don’t think students have a right to know how its surveillance software works. Proctorio is wrong. Now let’s prove it together.
Stand against Proctorio.