this is my official response.

i appear to have turned the auto-reply on last night by accident. i apologize for the first response, which was automatic.

i do understand the ruling; the court is essentially deferring to the mfippa, in an attempt to minimize it's own reach. it agrees that asking for an order is due diligence rather than an absence of it, and is willing in principle to overrule the mfippa to get the information, but not unless it feels it has to as a last resort. so, it is instructing that i do a search first and then come back and ask again if it doesn't provide the appropriate information.

i will remind the court that i did not perform this search out of fear of getting arrested for it. that fear is not unfounded, on my behalf: the allegation in the case is that i was arrested not much more than a year ago on the orders of the defendant with the purpose of intimidating me from filing a human rights case against the defendant. the veracity of this claim is what is to be determined in the case. i was in fact then charged with stalking this person, despite not knowing their real name or their address or even their actual gender, which my request for order has made abundantly clear. i was released in the context of an order not to further communicate with the individual, directly or indirectly, until the charges were dropped, and these charges were indeed quickly dropped. had i not been arrested, i wouldn't even know the name of the numbered company that had me arrested. as such, i felt my options for performing research were limited by threats of further criminal charges - something i explained to the tribunal, in writing, on three separate occasions. and, i need to be clear on the point: i have not done anything at all to determine who this person is, and will state as much under oath as many ways as you'd like me to. i have abided by the conditions of the release, well after the charges were dropped.

so, it should be clear that the reason i opted for this approach was to ensure i didn't get arrested a second time. while conducting a corporate search may not be grounds for arrest, not having valid grounds for arrest didn't (allegedly) stop them the first time. and, i'm not convinced the justice would let me out so quickly a second time, fairly or not.

the order, here, is clear enough: i have been granted authority by the tribunal to determine this person's identity by conducting the appropriate searches, and i should not fear extra-legal or otherwise  retributive action by the windsor police for doing so. as such, i do not expect to be contacted by the windsor police about it when i do so, and will have the information available for the tribunal (or a second request for order, if it is not available) by the middle of next week at the very latest.

j