The plaintiff, a Toronto billionaire, complained about an article published in the online edition of the defendant newspaper in November, 2011, which was read by at least several people in Ontario and 200-300 people in Canada. The tort of defamation is committed where the publication takes place. company, but they were published or republished in Ontario and they are alleged to have caused injury in Ontario.
The Court stated: "The plaintiff has undertaken not to seek at the trial of this action to recover damages for reputational harm in Israel or anywhere else outside of Canada. Publication occurs when the words are heard, read or downloaded. The connection between the subject matter of the actions and Ontario is thus significant.”“connected to Ontario if it was reasonably foreseeable to these defendants that the allegedly defamatory press releases posted on their company’s New York website would be downloaded and published in Ontario and would result in damage to the plaintiff’s reputation in Ontario.”.
6 of the The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed a pre-trial application by one of the defendants, a journalist, to strike out elements of the plaintiff’s claim for damages relating to the publication of 39 allegedly defamatory articles in a monthly bulletin posted on the defendant’s Internet website. The plaintiff claimed damages in its statement of claim for allegedly false and misleading statements contrary to s. These claims related in part to statements allegedly reported and published in various media and on the Internet; interviews with CNBC Europe and CNN in England which were posted on the defendant’s website; and an interview with Telecom TV linked to the defendant’s website. As a result, the defence motion to stay the Ontario litigation on forum conveniens grounds was dismissed.
The defendant journalist alleged the claim against him was outside the one year limitation period for claims based on injury to reputation. [Note: On this type of application, the Court does not decide the merits of the claims]. 834 (BCCA), the Ontario court accepted that “defamation occurs in the jurisdiction where the statements were read or heard.” The Quebec Superior Court , following and applying Vincent v Forget, 2008 QCCS 2466, ordered that a lawsuit for defamation based on words published in discussion groups hosted by Google inc. The plaintiffs, who originally came from the Punjab and have lived in Canada since 1992, brought this libel litigation over an article relating to events which took place in India.
The Ontario court held that a " The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that Ontario had jurisdiction over a defamation lawsuit based on 18 blog posts or articles posted by the defendant on Word between August 2014 and November 2015 and "" other Twitter users. The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear this appeal on March 25, 2011. The Court of Appeal held it did not need to decide whether the correct test (as alleged by the defence) was whether the defendant “targeted” the defamatory statements to the forum because the Court held that it was “clear on the record that there is evidence that the defendants did target and direct their statements to this jurisdiction.” The Court of Appeal concluded that although the factual context of the claims involved significant connections to the United States, there was a real and substantial connection between the plaintiff Black’s claims and Ontario arising from the publication in Ontario and damage to Black’s reputation in Ontario.
Further, such an Order was not justified in all the circumstances. Yahoo does not do business and has no physical presence or bank accounts in British Columbia. The Court of Appeal heard from an intervener, Media Coalition, which suggested alternative approaches to the issue of jurisdiction which the Court declined to adopt in this case, stating “[i]t may be that in some future case involving internet publication, this court will find it useful to consider and apply one or more of the proposed approaches.” See Mc Conchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, ", less than 250 copies of which were delivered in hard copy to subscribers or newsstands in Canada (none in British Columbia).
The plaintiff specifically limited his claim to damages for reputational harm suffered in Canada and agree in advance to pay the travel and accommodation expenses for the defendant newspaper's witnesses. The defamation claims concern a book which was published in Quebec and distributed to bookstores in Quebec, Ontario and other parts of Canada.
The Court of Appeal rejected defence arguments this was a case of "" of the alleged sting of the newspaper article. The Internet is implicated because the book can be purchased on the Internet and is referred to on websites and in newspaper articles which can be accessed by persons in Ontario.
A link will in most cases lead to a free, publicly-accessible website.
In a few instances, the link is not to another website but to an Adobe Acrobat version of the judgment stored on this website. Most are from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which does not display its decisions on its website.