Court File No. CV-26-00017856-0000
Equibit Group Ltd. and Chris Horlacher v. Nathan Wosnack and Ubitquity, LLC
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Issued 8 September 2026.
On 17 September 2026, Rebel.com forwarded a complaint from Nathan Wosnack, writing as founder and CEO of Ubitquity, LLC. The complaint asked the registrar to suspend equibitlawsuit.com and to lift WHOIS privacy on the registration. The page Wosnack identified as the source of the alleged harm is the public report of the Statement of Claim issued against him nine days earlier.
See: Statement of Claim Filed Against Nathan Wosnack and Ubitquity, LLC.
What Wosnack Sent Rebel.com
The message, sent from nathan@ubitquity.io, styled the SOC page as a “targeted cyber-harassment and defamation campaign” and as a terms-of-service violation. It alleged trade libel and tortious interference with Ubitquity, LLC in the United States. It asserted that Rebel.com, being headquartered in Ottawa, was “subject to Canadian law” and that by leaving the page up the registrar was facilitating unlawful activity.
The complaint then asked Rebel.com to:
- Suspend the domain and hosting for equibitlawsuit.com; and
- Revoke the WHOIS privacy proxy so that “legal counsel may effectuate proper legal service upon the true registrant.”
Wosnack wrote that he had preserved screenshots, including posts on X linking to the site, and attached files for Rebel’s legal department. Rebel’s covering note to the registrant stated the ordinary rule: if the registrant believes it is in compliance, it is under no obligation to act on the complaint. Rebel will act on registry complaints, hosting-partner complaints, and orders of recognized courts.
The Page He Cited Is the Pleading
The URL in the complaint is not an anonymous attack page. It is Equibit Group Ltd.’s report of CV-26-00017856-0000, issued 8 September 2026. That claim alleges that Wosnack and Ubitquity registered and operated impersonation websites at equibit.io and equibit.net, using knowledge acquired while Wosnack was a director and Chief Blockchain Officer of Equibit. The plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, transfer of the domains, an accounting, and a Norwich order directed at NameCheap, Cloudflare, Google, and other intermediaries.
On 16 September 2026 the company’s X account published that filing and named Wosnack. The Rebel complaint arrived the next day and pointed at the same URL.
Rebel.com is not a defamation court. A defendant who disputes the allegations in an issued Statement of Claim files a Statement of Defence in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. He does not obtain a finding of “libel” by writing to a domain registrar. No order of that court has directed Rebel to suspend the domain, change nameservers, or lift privacy.
The WHOIS Request
The second ask — that Rebel strip WHOIS privacy so counsel can “effectuate proper legal service” — sits beside the face of the claim. The issued pleading names Nathan Wosnack and Ubitquity, LLC. It lists addresses for service. Equibit Group Ltd. and Chris Horlacher are the plaintiffs and the operators of the site that reports the proceeding. Wosnack does not require a Turks and Caicos unmasking in order to know who sued him or where the action was commenced.
On 24 September 2026 counsel at BE Law LLP confirmed they have been unable to locate Wosnack for personal service of the originating process in CV-26-00017856-0000.
The Rebel.com letter is not a Statement of Defence. It is not an appearance. It is not completed service under the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is contemporaneous written proof that Wosnack has actual notice of this action: he named the URL, described the page, attached materials, wrote as the personal and corporate defendant, and asked a registrar to unmask the plaintiffs so that he could be served — while remaining out of reach at the address on the claim.
Whether a judge later treats that conduct as evidence of actual notice, as a factor on a motion for substituted service or validation of service, or as a factor on an injunction, is for the court. It is recorded here because the defendant chose a registrar ticket instead of a Defence, and because counsel still cannot find him to put the claim in his hand.
The Same Week: Spam Backlinks
The Statement of Claim was issued on 8 September 2026. In the days around that filing, Ahrefs began recording a renewed inbound-link campaign aimed at equibitlawsuit.com: casino and crypto “buy DA” pages, and PBN pitches. The volume has run on the order of dozens of new toxic URLs per day.
Google Search Console shows no manual action and no security issue against the domain. Session totals across the four weeks before and after the filing are flat. Organic search sessions moved from 63 to 47 in those windows; time-on-session for search visits rose. The spam graph is not a Google penalty. It is another layer of noise attached to the same hostname Wosnack asked Rebel to suspend.
That pattern is the subject of the existing record on SEO Poisoning and on the two impersonation domains.
What Equibit Told the Registrar
On 17 September 2026 Horlacher replied to Rebel.com, with Sara Erskine and Ian Literovich of BE Law LLP copied. The reply identified the court file, stated that Rebel is not the forum in which the claim may be declared defamation, declined to take the page down or to disable WHOIS privacy on this complaint, and asked Rebel to confirm that it will not suspend the domain, transfer the registration, change nameservers, or lift privacy in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The page remains up. The action remains CV-26-00017856-0000. If Wosnack intends to contest the allegations, the Rules of Civil Procedure tell him where to file.
Further Reading
- Statement of Claim Filed Against Nathan Wosnack and Ubitquity, LLC
- Six Key Facts About the Impersonation Websites
- The NameCheap Fake Website Operation
- SEO Poisoning
- Statement of Claim Filed Against Marc Godard
