Hell No!: Federal Court Finds Evidence Insufficient To Grant Norwich Orders Against ISPs In Copyright Infringement Claim

On October 31, 2025, the Federal Court (the Court) issued its decision in Hellboy Productions, Inc. v DOE #1, 2025 FC 1766, denying Hellboy Productions, Inc.’s (the Plaintiff) motions to obtain Norwich orders against three internet service providers: Telus Communications Inc. (Telus), Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Cogeco), and Bell Canada (Bell) (collectively, the ISPs).

The Plaintiff sought to compel the ISPs to disclose the names and addresses associated with over 2400 internet protocol (IP) addresses, which the Plaintiff alleged were linked to individuals (the Unknown Defendants) who had infringed its copyright in the movie Hellboy: The Crooked Man (the Work). 

Although Telus did not oppose the motion, and the positions of Cogeco and Bell were unknown, the Court found that a lack of opposition from an internet service provider is not sufficient on its own to grant the motions, and that the Court must be satisfied that the applicable test is met. Ultimately, the Court found that two of the requirements for granting a Norwich order were not met in this case, namely, that: (i) there be a bona fide claim against the alleged wrongdoer; and (ii) the person from whom discovery is sought is more than an innocent bystander.

First, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that a bona fide claim for copyright infringement existed against the Unknown Defendants, as the Plaintiff failed to establish copyright ownership in the Work. The Court began by noting that the Plaintiff had not filed a certificate of copyright registration as evidence and had instead chosen to rely on the presumption under Section 34.1 of the Copyright Act to establish its copyright ownership in the Work. Section 34.1 creates a presumption of copyright ownership where “the defendant puts in issue either the existence of the copyright or the title of the plaintiff to it.” The Court, however, found that, as the defendants are unknown in motions for Norwich orders, “there is not, and cannot be, a ‘defendant [who] puts in issue either the existence of the copyright or the title of the plaintiff to it’” in such cases. As a result, the Court found that the Plaintiff could not rely on Section 34.1 and therefore could not demonstrate a bona fide claim for copyright infringement.

Second, the Court found that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff failed to actually identify Telus, Cogeco or Bell as the internet service providers responsible for the impugned IP addresses. The Court further found the evidence provided by the Plaintiff on this point to be voluminous and not organized in a manner which could be easily understood or verified.

Due to these evidentiary shortcomings, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice to further motions with better evidence.

Summary By: Claire Bettio