Cases published to March 25, 2008
This is a list of Canadian court decisions involving the publication of allegedly defamation expression via the Internet.
This list is not exhaustive: (a) court rulings are not always reduced to writing; (b) the law reports and electronic databases do not contain all written court rulings; and (c) jury verdicts are not published in the law reports or in electronic legal databases.
The Canadian Internet defamation decisions are currently indexed under the following topic headings:
As new Canadian Court rulings are pronounced and listed on this page, new topic headings may be added.
Under each topic heading, the Canadian decisions are listed in reverse chronological order (i.e. the most recent decision is listed first).
Wherever possible, a hypertext link is provided to the full text of a Canadian decision. 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.
A number of decisions have no link. Most are from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which does not display its decisions on its website.
Most of the Canadian decisions which pre-date April 1, 2004 are discussed in Roger D. McConchie and David A. Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2004). References to relevant pages in the book are given below.
See also:
This page lists certain Commonwealth decisions which discuss Internet defamation and which may therefore be of interest to Canadian tribunals.
McConchie Law Corporation makes this list available to clients, friends of the firm, legal researchers, and others interested in Internet law with the caveat that nothing on this website constitutes legal advice. Potential Internet defamation litigants should ensure that they obtain appropriate legal advice tailored to their specific circumstances.
McConchie Law Corporation can not accept any responsibility for keeping information on this list up-to-date although it strives to do so. Cases of interest should be carefully up-dated before any reliance is placed on them.
McConchie Law Corporation does not express any view concerning the validity of the findings of fact made by the courts whose decisions are listed below. Findings of fact may be discussed, however, to the extent necessary to provide context for a court's decision.
Basic principles
Jurisdiction
The basic principle applied by Canadian courts is that a court may exercise jurisdiction only if it has a "real and substantial connection" with the subject matter of the litigation. See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "The Provincial Superior Courts and Conflicts of Laws," pages 144-159.
Forum conveniens
Even if a Canadian court has jurisdiction, it may decline to hear the case if it concludes that the court of some other jurisdiction is more convenient and appropriate for the pursuit of the action and for securing the ends of justice. See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "The Provincial Superior Courts and Conflicts of Laws," "Forum Non Conveniens," page 152.
2007 September 4
Crookes v Holloway
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Non-Internet Defamation Also Alleged: No.
Canadian Court has jurisdiction? No
Canadian Court should decline jurisdiction: Not relevant
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed this libel action against Yahoo, a foreign defendant with no ties to British Columbia. “Yahoo has no offices in Canada, is not registered to do business in Canada and does not pay Canadian taxes. Yahoo does not do business and has no physical presence or bank accounts in British Columbia. The servers for Yahoo’s internet services ... are not located in Canada. The fact Yahoo can be accessed on the internet from a computer in British Columbia is not evidence it is carrying on business in British Columbia.”
The Court, applying Dow Jones Co. Inc. v Gutnick (2002), 194 Aust.L.R. 433 (H.C.) and Barrick Gold Corp. v Blanchard and Co., [2003] O.J. No. 5817 (S.C.), held that the defamation is committed at the time and place when a person downloads the impugned material from the internet.
The plaintiff in this case “neither alleged nor tendered any evidence that any individual in British Columbia has downloaded and read the impugned material posted ... on the website.”
2007 March 27
Bains v Sidhu Singh Hamdard Trust
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Non-Internet Defamation Also Alleged: Yes - printed newspaper
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Not disputed
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that it had jurisdiction to hear this case (as conceded by the defendants) and rejected the defence submissions that India was a more appropriate jurisdiction for the action. As a result, the defence motion to stay the Ontario litigation on forum conveniens grounds was dismissed.
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 Court noted that although the print edition of the defendant newspaper “is directed to readers in India for the most part, the [newspaper’s] website is accessed by an approximate average of 8,000 readers per day in Canada, a significant portion of whom are in Ontario.”
In arriving at the conclusion that the action should be heard in Ontario, the Court noted that the plaintiffs had commenced defamation actions against three other newspapers distributed in Ontario and read by members of the Punjabi-speaking population which had reportedly published the same article or a version of it. The desirability of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings was a factor which the court held weighed heavily in favour of the plaintiffs on this application.
2005 September 16
Bangoura
v The Washington Post, (2004)
235 D.L.R. (4th) 564 (SCJ)
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website
posting
Alleged Cyber Libel:
Website posting
Non-Internet Defamation Also Alleged:
Yes - printed newspapers
Canadian court has jurisdiction?
No
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction?
Not relevant
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that
a lower court judged erred in ruling that Ontario has jurisdiction
to hear a defamation claim based on two articles originally published
by the defendant in 1997 on its website (and in its hard copy newspaper)
while the plaintiff was living in Kenya. The articles related to
the plaintiff’s activities in a prior posting in Ivory Coast
as an employee of the United Nations. The plaintiff’s wife
and children had moved to Montreal in December 1996.
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 McConchie and Potts,
Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Jurisdiction simpliciter,"
page 147, "Forum Non Conveniens," pages 152,
153; "Where did the wrong take place," page 157.
2005 September 16
Burke
v NYP Holdings, Inc., 2005 BCSC 1287
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website
posting
Non-Internet Defamation Also Alleged:
Yes - printed matter in Ontario andQuebec; also
re-publication by a Vancouver radio talk show [not named as
defendant]
Canadian court has jurisdiction?
Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction?
No
The British Columbia Supreme Court held that it has
jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim brought by former Vancouver
Canucks general manager Brian Burke against the New York Post
over a February 27, 2005 column published in the New York Post,
less than 250 copies of which were delivered in hard copy to subscribers
or newsstands in Canada (none in British Columbia). There were approximately
3,500 “hits” on the website page containing the column.
The New York Post had “no method to determine the
geographic origin of the hits or the geographic location of any
of the individuals directing their browsers to access the website.”
A Vancouver radio sports talk show host, however, testified he personally
accessed the subject column and “read a large excerpt of that
column on the air.”
The BC Supreme Court held that the New York Post,
by “publishing on its website a matter which was of interest
to people in British Columbia …it was foreseeable that the
Column would be picked up by the media in British Columbia given
the [prior] publicity” surrounding an incident which took
place during a Canucks game in Vancouver.
The Court also held that British Columbia is the appropriate
forum for this cyber libel lawsuit.
For details of this decision, click here [under
construction - summary forthcoming]
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian
Libel and Slander Actions, "Jurisdiction simpliciter,"
page 147, "Forum Non Conveniens," pages 152,
153; "Where did the wrong take place," page 157.
2005 January 14
Wiebe
v Bouchard, 2005 BCSC 47
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Non-Internet Defamation Also Alleged: Yes - printed matter
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The British Columbia Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim arising from the publication of a Quebec academic's report placed on a website by the Government of Canada and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women Canada.
The Court noted that the defendant Québec academic had deposed that the topics in her report (which had been translated from French into English by the defendant Government of Canada) were of national and perhaps international importance and had been placed on the Government website for the benefit of all Canadians.
The Court also held that British Columbia is the appropriate forum for this cyber libel lawsuit.
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Jurisdiction simpliciter," page 147, "Forum Non Conveniens," pages 152, 153; "Where did the wrong take place," page 157.
2004 February 02
Trizec Properties Inc. v Citigroup Global Markets Inc
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Non-Internet Defamation Also Alleged: Yes - telephone conference call, printed matter
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that it has jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim arising from statements allegedly made by an employee of the defendant during a telephone conference call and in a Research Note the same employee later authored. The Court found that the Research Note was distributed primarily in the United States but also to recipients in Ontario.
The Court also found that the Research Note was made available on three websites of the defendant Citigroup Global and that there were approximately 1,300 Ontario subscribers who could have accessed the three websites.
The Court also held that Ontario is the appropriate forum for this lawsuit.
For details of this decision, click here.
See also McConchie and Potts, Canadian
Libel and Slander Actions, "Jurisdiction simpliciter,"
page 147; "Where did the wrong take place," page
157.
2003 December 09
Barrick Gold Corporation v Blanchard & Co
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The Ontario Superior Court held that it has jurisdiction over claims relating to allegedly defamatory statements made by the defendants that were allegedly published or disseminated in Ontario and other parts of Canada on the Internet and by press releases, written notices and a telephone hotline, and certain re-publication.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice also held that Ontario is the appropriate forum for this lawsuit.
For details of this decision, click here.
2003 March 12
Imagis Technologies Inc. v Red Herring Communications Inc.
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The British Columbia Supreme Court held that it is the appropriate forum for a lawsuit alleging that the defendant magazine had published expression defamatory of the plaintiff in hard copy print form and on the Internet.
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Where did the wrong take place?" - page 156.
1999 June 29
Direct Energy Marketing Ltd. v Hillson
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The defendant conceded that the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench had jurisdiction where the plaintiff alleged that the allegedly defamatory words were published in The Saskatoon Star Phoenix newspaper, several copies of which were sold in Calgary, Alberta from a news outlet and also alleged that the words were published on the Internet websites of The Regina Leader Post and The Saskatoon Star Phoenix (located in Saskatchewan.).
The Court also concluded that Alberta was the appropriate forum for this lawsuit.
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Forum Non Conveniens," page 153.
1999 March 18
Braintech, Inc. v Kostiuk
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Texas court had jurisdiction? No
Texas court was appropriate jurisdiction? No
The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused to enforce a $300,000 (US) default judgment for libel and disparagement obtained by the plaintiff from a Texas court on the ground that there was no real and substantial connection between the parties and that jurisdiction. The factual cornerstone of the Court's ruling seems to be the lack of any evidence that anyone in Texas actually viewed or downloaded the allegedly defamatory matter which had been posted on a computer located outside Texas. Accordingly, there was no evidence of any "publication" to a third party within Texas.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that British Columbia was "the natural forum for the resolution of the dispute between two residents" and that "Texas was not even an appropriate forum."
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Jurisdiction simpliciter," page 149; "Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments," page 158.
1998 December 09
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Yes
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? Not in issue.
The Québec Superior Court held that although a resident of Québec had published allegedly defamatory comments on an Internet site at a server outside that province, the Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Court noted that all the facts which were the subject of the lawsuit had their origins in Québec. The defendant prepared the website in Québec and resided in that province. Customers or potential customers of the plaintiff resided in Québec and elsewhere in Canada.
1998 June 18
Alleged Cyber Libel: Website posting
Canadian court has jurisdiction? Not in issue
Canadian court should decline jurisdiction? No
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that it was the appropriate forum to consider claims brought by the plaintiff over a newspaper article published in the Ugandan daily newspaper New Vision which was republished on the newspaper's website.
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Forum Non Conveniens," page 153.
Basic principles
Each Canadian province and territory except British Columbia and Saskatchewan prescribes in its defamation statute a very brief period within which a person who intends to institute an action for libel in a newspaper or in a radio or television broadcast must serve each prospective defendant with a written notice of intended legal action.
In the context of Internet defamation, the question is whether posting on a website is to be considered a publication in a "newspaper" or a "broadcast" within the meaning of these statutes.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Chapter Six: Notice of Intended Action and Limitation Defences," page 61.
2007 November 23, 2007
Warman v Fromm and Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the defence that libel claims arising from 5 of 9 website postings should be barred because the plaintiff failed to give written notice of intended action pursuant to s. 5 of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act which requires such notice in the case of broadcasts from a station within Ontario.
The Court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to permit a finding whether publication on an internet website is a “broadcast” within the meaning of the Libel and Slander Act, noting that no radio broadcast was involved as was the case in Janssen-Ortho Inc. v Amgen Canada Inc., [2006] O.J. No. 2265. The Court also concluded that because the internet website was hosted on a server outside Canada, the defence could not in any event show that the broadcast was from a station within Ontario.
2005 June 07
Janssen-Ortho
Inc. v Amgen Canada Inc., [2005] O.J. No. 2265
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an Internet
broadcast by a radio station which also published the allegedly
defamatory expression over ordinary radio waves is a “broadcast”
within the meaning of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act.
The Court of Appeal also held that because the
radio waves were broadcast by a radio station within Ontario, it
was a logical inference that the Internet broadcast was also in
Ontario, thereby satisfying another element of the statutory definition.
In the circumstances, because the plaintiff had not given the requisite
notice of intended action within the time limited by the statute,
the plaintiff’s defamation claims relating to the radio wave
and Internet “broadcasts” were struck out.
2003 October 22
Bahlieda v Santa,[2003] O.J. No. 1159
The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a lower court ruling which had determined that material placed on a website and made available through the Internet is "broadcast" within the definition of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act, thereby triggering the notice requirement.
The Court of Appeal held that this issue was too complicated to be decided on a summary judgment application and should be determined at a full trial where expert witnesses on the subject could be cross-examined in the presence of the court.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Is the libel contained in a 'broadcast'?"page 152.
2002 September 19
Weiss v Sawyer
The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously held that a newspaper published on the Internet is included in the definition of "newspaper" contained in Ontario's Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O 1990, c. L.12. Accordingly, sustaining the lower court's decision dismissing a libel lawsuit, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant was entitled to the benefit of s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act which requires a plaintiff to serve a statutory notice of intended action within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to his or her attention. The defendant had not been served with such notice and accordingly was entitled to have the action dismissed.
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Is the Libel Contained in a 'Newspaper'?" pages 70-71.
Basic principles
Each Canadian province and territory has enacted statutes which bar or extinguish the cause of action for defamation after the lapse of a specified period of time.
2005 August 03
The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously rejected
the “single publication rule” adopted by a number of
American States, noting it had not been accepted by appellate courts
in England and Australia. The Court described the single publication
rule as one “which several communications to a third party
of a defamatory statement are held to be only one publication and
the limitation period begins to run from the date of the first such
communication.” The Court of Appeal held that each publication
would give rise to a fresh cause of action. The Court noted that
“[i]n the instant case, the offending comment remained available
on the internet because the defendant respondent did not take effective
steps to have the offensive material removed in a timely way.
The Court of Appeal sustained the lower court’s
ruling that making a reference in a printed newsletter to a website,
where the defendant exercised no element of control over the website,
did not constitute an actionable publication of defamatory material
on the website. “Whether a different result should obtain
concerning an internet website that makes reference to another website
I would leave for that decision when that factual circumstance arises.”
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Internet Libel," pages 106-107.
2007 December 06
Smith v Cross,
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff municipal councillor $25,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages over false and defamatory allegations relating to the plaintiff’s prior role as Chairman of the local School Board. The libels were contained in three emails disseminated in November, 2005 to a variety of recipients, including Members of the British Columbia Legislature. The Court noted that the defendant “argued that anyone could author an e-mail and make look as though it came from him, when in fact it did not” but ruled that the defence position with respect to the emails was “obstructionist” and held that “those portions of the e-mails produced as exhibits by the plaintiff purporting to be from the defendant were in fact sent to the plaintiff and the others listed on them by [the defendant].”
2007 November 28
Lee v Ng
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded general damages of $5,000 to the plaintiff real estate agent over false allegations of fraudulent behaviour in an email sent to a handful of individuals at a real estate firm. The one email recipient who testified for the plaintiff did not assert the email had a negative effect on her views of the plaintiff.
2007 November 23, 2007
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff, a human rights lawyer, defamation damages aggregating $30,000 over nine postings on various Internet websites. The award consisted of $20,000 general damages and $10,000 aggravated damages The Court held that the individual defendant’s statements were designed to hold the plaintiff up to ridicule by “staying away from the truth behind [the plaintiff’s actions] because of his [the defendant’s] profound philosophical support for unbounded and unlimited freedom of expression, despite the parameters and constraints imposed by law.” The Court found that the dominant motive of the individual defendant was to attack the plaintiff personally “in retaliation for the [plaintiff’s] use of legal processes to restrain illegal speech.”
2007 October 29
The Ontario Small Claims Court awarded the plaintiff labour lawyer general damages of $7,500 over two defamatory emails sent to prominent members of the union movement and the public.
2007 August 8
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board v Scharf,
2008 ONCA 154
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff school principal and the plaintiff superintendent of instruction defamation damages aggregating $30,000 over a “News Release” and supporting documents posted continuously on an Internet website since January, 2005 which falsely alleged the plaintiff was guilty of violating a court order, assault, use of excessive force and improper action making a school unsafe for a child with Downs syndrome. Each plaintiff was awarded general damages of $15,000. The Court also ordered the removal of the defamatory material from the Internet.
2007 May 23
Bilodeau v Savard
The Quebec Court (Civil) awarded $2,000 to the plaintiff, a consultant who treated compulsive gambling, over defamatory allegations published by the defendant on the plaintiff’s own website for one day, which falsely alleged that the effectiveness of the plaintiff’s methods had been misrepresented to the media.
2007 May 17
3095-4333 Quebec inc. v Service de transport STCH inc.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff transportation company $25,000 punitive damages against the defendant transportation broker over two defamatory emails sent to the transportation brokers association, and subsequently distributed to all association members, which warned association members against dealing with the plaintiff. The emails made false allegations of misconduct against the plaintiff. The Court also ordered the defendant to formally apologize to the plaintiff and to inform all members of the transportation brokers association to disregard its defamatory emails.
2007 January 11
WeGo Kayaking Ltd. v Sewid
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded defamation damages totalling $257,500 to two corporations offering kayak tours in waters east of Vancouver Island. The Court held that the individual male defendant was responsible because he participated in publishing the defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff eco-tourism companies on a website by “formulating, then communicating, authorizing and approving” their publication on the website. In such circumstances, it was no defence that someone else ( a bankrupt co-defendant) was the person who actually posted the defamatory statements on the website. Details of the damages awarded are as follows: (a) general damages of $100,000 plus punitive damages of $2,500 to the corporate plaintiff WeGo Kayaking Ltd. and (b) general damages of $150,000 plus punitive damages of $5,000 to the corporate plaintiff Northern Lights Expeditions Ltd.
2006 November 24
Urbanowski v Harkins
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff computer systems engineer $10,000 general damages over false allegations by the defendant that the plaintiff had defrauded the defendant and his collision company with the unauthorized use of the defendant’s credit card and by “reneging” on payment terms for his insurance deductible. The false and defamatory statements were made in two emails sent by the defendant to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, one of which was also copied to two officers of the Associate of Auto Trades.
2006 July 24
Loh v Yang
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff lawyer $50,000 general damages, $25,000 aggravated damages and $10,000 punitive damages over false allegations that he was dishonest as a lawyer, political candidate and community leader. These false allegations were published over a period of six years on web sites, in a written notice of a media conference, and on a placard worn by the defendant in Vancouver and on occasion near the plaintiff’s offices. The plaintiff was also awarded special costs.
2006 June 20
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the course of assessing defamation damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, rejected the plaintiff’s submission that publication of the offending article on the website of the defendant newspaper from October 2002 to April 2003 was a factor that weighed in support of an award of punitive damages. In this case, the Court noted that the posting of the defamatory editorial on the website was part of the standard practice of the defendant newspaper and not a special step related to the plaintiffs. “An Internet user would need to go through several steps to access the editorial, which suggests that it would not come to the attention of such users as readily as it would have reached the readers of the newspaper in its distribution in print form in the week of October 2, 2002.” The Court held that publication on the website was not shown to have likely had a material effect.
2006 March 13
Angle v LaPierre
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded general damages aggregating $49,001 to six plaintiffs who were defamed in website postings. The plaintiffs included two school principles, three teachers and the Alberta Teacher’s Association and one of its employees. The individual defendants included parents of children in the schools system.
2006 January 11
Newman v Halstead
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $676,000 CAN to eleven plaintiffs who were defamed in sixty defamatory statements published on internet “chat rooms” or “bulletin boards”, a website and in emails which were distributed to large numbers of recipients. The largest individual award of general damages was $150,000 CAN. The judgment included an award of $50,000 CAN punitive damages to be divided equally among the plaintiffs. The Court also granted a permanent injunction against “any statements or other communications which refer to any of the plaintiffs by name, by depiction or by description.”
2005 November 11
Lacroix v Dicaire
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff, a senior city official, the sum of $30,000 Cdn as moral damages for defamation over expression published on the Internet and elsewhere. At paragraph 75 of its judgment, the Court stated that the defendant “ a utilisé un moyen de communication puissant, l'internet, afin de s'assurer de détruire plus largement la reputation” of the plaintiff.
2004 November 15
The Nunavut Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff
prison warden general damages of $35,000 including aggravated damages
over defamatory expression contained in a hard-copy newsletter published
by subordinate employees. The Court held that the plaintiff’s
damages were aggravated by the dissemination of the newsletter’s
defamatory allegations on an internet message board which provoked
“local anonymous commentary” and thereby “expanded”
the publication.
.
The Ontario Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 Cdn general damages and $50,000 Cdn aggravated damages over emails which the court held were false and defamatory.
2004 June 04
Barrick Gold Corp. v Lopehandia
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the corporate plaintiff, a gold mining company, was entitled to $75,000 Cdn general damages and $50,000 Cdn punitive damages for libels published in postings on various websites. The lower court judge had awarded only $15,000 Cdn general damages and nothing for punitive damages.
2004 June 01
Simpson v Mair
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the defendant radio show host the sum of $100 Cdn as nominal damages over what it held were false and defamatory allegations by the defendant by counterclaim- the Citizens Research Institute Society -- on its website.
2004 February 27
Sasseville v Vincent
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff hockey team administrator the sum of $3,500 Cdn as moral damages for defamation against the defendant hockey player over allegations published in a newspaper and on the newspaper's website.
Gosselin v Vincent
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff hockey team general manager the sum of $2,000 Cdn as moral damages for defamation against the defendant hockey player over allegations published in a newspaper and on the newspaper's website.
2004 January 29
2004 January 29
Vaquero Energy Ltd. v Weir
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff oil and gas exploration company $10,000 Cdn general damages over false, anonymous and defamatory e-mails and messages posted in chat rooms - called bullboards - where people could post messages about particular stocks. The individual plaintiff - the president and CEO of the company -- was awarded $40,000 Cdn general damages and $25,000 Cdn punitive damages.
2004 January 07
Consumers' Assn. of Canada v Hillard
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff - a non-profit, non-governmental, volunteer organization -- $1,000 Cdn general damages. The court also awarded the president of the organization $4000 Cdn general damages and the secretary/treasurer $3000 Cdn general damages. The Court held that the libels were contained in two emails sent by the defendant, a board member, to other board members, to committee chairs and to provincial branches of the organization in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
2003 July 30
Buchwald c 2640-7999 Quebec Inc.
The Québec Superior Court awarded the male plaintiff - a restaurant operator -- $6,250 Cdn moral damages over the defendant's statements and comments which appeared on his Internet website for 125 days. The $6,250 Cdn award represented $50 Cdn damages per day for the website publication. The male plaintiff was also awarded $1,750 Cdn punitive damages. The male plaintiff's wife, although not expressly named by the defendant in the libels, was awarded $1,500 Cdn moral damages and $1,750 Cdn pecuniary damages for losses to the restaurant business (150 meals). In addition, the court awarded the plaintiffs a total of $2,250 Cdn damages for legal expenses.
2003 June 06
Ager v Canjex Publishing Ltd.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff geophysicist defamation damages totaling $300,000 Cdn in relation to certain articles published in "Stockwatch," a Vancouver publication which is made available to subscribers principally via Internet. The plaintiff was also awarded special (substantial indemnity) costs. The award consisted of $200,000 Cdn general damages and $100,000 Cdn aggravated damages. On September 28, 2005, the Court of Appeal sustained the award of $200,000 Cdn general damages but set aside the award of $100,000 for aggravated damages:
2005 BCCA 467.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Chapter Twenty-Three: Pleadings," "Fair Comment," page 583.
2003 June 04
Association des medecins traitant l'obesitee v Breton,
The Québec Superior Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $220,000 Cdn over approximately thirty Internet postings by the defendant. The plaintiff association AMTO (doctors treating obesity) was awarded $25,000 Cdn punitive damages; the plaintiff Pro-amino (a corporation selling food products) was awarded $25,000 Cdn punitive damages. Two doctors were each awarded $25,000 Cdn moral damages and $50,000 Cdn punitive damages. A third individual was awarded $10,000 Cdn moral damages and $10,000 Cdn punitive damages.
2003 May 05
Graf v Duhaime
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff - the president of a non-profit society -- the sum of $50,000 Cdn moral damages over defamatory allegations contained in a letter mailed to members and contributors and others and posted on the society's Internet site, in messages and text on the Internet home page of the society, in certain statements made to a newspaper, and in a written communication to members of the society pending its annual meeting in 2001. The female co-plaintiff was awarded $10,000 Cdn damages. In addition, the court awarded the plaintiffs damages of $100,000 Cdn to defray their legal costs.
2003 March 07
Caron v Rassemblement des employes technicians aubulanciers du Quebec
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff lawyer/ambulance technician $100,000 Cdn damages ($50,000 moral; $50,000 exemplary) arising from a communique sent by fax by the defendant union to regional unions affiliated with a national federation of unions. The circular was posted on the bulletin boards of ambulance companies in Québec whose unions were affiliated with the national federation. The same communique was also posted on the Internet site of the defendant union.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the aggregate sum of $400,000 Cdn damages to the plaintiff over libels published on the Internet on at least seven different websites. The award consisted of $200,000 Cdn general damages, $50,000 Cdn aggravated damages against each of the two defendants, and $50,000 Cdn punitive damages against each of the defendants.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Chapter Thirty: Damages," "Aggravated Damages," page 852; "Avoiding Overlap between General and Aggravated Damages," page 853; "Awards," page 866.
2001 November 23
Vermette v Harmer
The Supreme Court of British Columbia awarded $40,000 Cdn general damages, $10,000 Cdn aggravated damages and $10,000 Cdn punitive damages to the plaintiff police constable for defamatory statements published on two websites.
2000 December 04
Ramsey v Pacific Press, a Division of Southam Inc.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded a provincial cabinet minister general damages of $30,000 Cdn for defamation against defendant radio talk-show host and his employer, a radio station, over a broadcast and over the posting of the text of the broadcast on the radio station's website.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, pages 165, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 317, 460, 764, 786, 787.
2000 September 21 [2000] B.C.J. No. 314 (CA) [1998] B.C.J. No. 848
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded damages aggregating $875,000 Cdn to a newspaper columnist, David Baines, for several articles, a press release, and an oral statement made at a business seminar.
The damage awards included general damages of $250,000 Cdn against the defendants Chelekis and Market News (a distributor of information by means of electronic communication to private investors, including supplying material to Star Data and Bloomburg, thereby achieving worldwide distribution).
Aggravated damages of $100,000 Cdn and punitive damages of $100,000 Cdn were also awarded, presumably in part in relation to the electronic communications.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by two of the defendants, Market News Publishing Inc. and Robert Shore, from the assessment against them of damages in the sum of $250,000 (see (c) above). Leave to appeal to the SCC was denied [2000] SCCA 177 (SC)
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Chapter Thirty: Damages, Awards" -pages 865, 894.
Five school board officials and the Toronto District School Board sued in the Ontario Superior Court over defamatory letters which were posted on Web sites and on Scribe, an internal bulletin system of the Scarborough Board of Education.
The Court awarded a total of $15,000 Cdn general damages to five of the plaintiffs ($3,000 Cdn each to four individuals and the School Board) plus a total of $2,000 Cdn aggravated damages ($500 to each of the four individual plaintiffs who received an award of general damages).
In addition, the court awarded $1,500 Cdn punitive damages to one individual plaintiff. The court subsequently ordered that the defendants pay solicitor and client costs (substantial indemnity for legal fees) [2000] O.J. No. 840.
The Police Chief of London, Ontario brought a lawsuit in the Ontario Court General Division over an individual who made defamatory remarks in electronic messages. The plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the amount of $40,000.
2008 March 11
Wiebe v Bouchard
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a defamation action brought by the creator of a website called B.C. Fathers against the authors of a research paper published by a federal government agency which used an image taken from the plaintiff’s website as an example of internet “hate messages”. The alleged defamation was contained in a lengthy report which was the result of a research project funded by the Status of Women Canada. The report contained only two direct references to the plaintiff or his website. The Court concluded that the passages at issue were matters of comment, as opposed to statements of fact, and that they were protected by the defence of fair comment. “In this case, the defendants reproduced an image that the plaintiff admits was on his website. The defendants made statements about that image and what they considered to be its symbolic meaning and underlying message. For the purpose of the defence of fair comment, the “facts” on which the comment is based consist of the image itself and the fact that it appeared on the plaintiff’s website. Some readers looking at the image may agree with what the defendants say about it. Others may fail to see who the defendants drew those conclusions, while still others may think the defendants have misinterpreted and over-reacted to an attempt at humour or satire. The point is that the image is there for readers to consider in light of what the defendants may say about it. In my view, this makes it a classic example of a comment based on true, clearly stated facts.” The Court found that the subject was of public interest, reasoning that by creating a website and posting material on it, the plaintiff obviously decided the material was of public interest and related to social or political issues. “Any response to or comment upon it must be of equal public interest.”
2007 December 20
Rozario v Souza
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a defamation action following a summary trial concerning newsletters published on the Internet from April until November 2006 which the plaintiff complained alleged that he was a “troublemaker”. Although the Court that meaning was defamatory, and rejected a pleaded defence of truth (“justification”), it held that the publications were protected by the defence of fair comment. In this regard, the Court stated: “Notwithstanding that the statements are defamatory, in the sense that they might tend to reduce [the plaintiff’s] reputation in the community, the statements that he is a “troublemaker”, do not allege any criminal, quasi-criminal or immoral actions, nor does the term imply an improper motive on the part of [the plaintiff]. 2007 May 23
2007 October 25
P.B. v R.V.E.
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed defamation claims by parents of the defendant arising from communications by the defendant to her siblings and their spouses alleging physical and sexual abuse by the plaintiff P.B. and failure to prevent its occurrence by the plaintiff J.B. Some of those communications consisted of emails. The Court held the communications occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege. The Court also found that certain allegations of the defendant R.V.E. against P.B. were true and awarded damages to the defendant R.V.E. on her counterclaim against the plaintiff P.B.
2007 October 18
Crookes v De Simone
The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously sustained a summary judgment by the trial court [2007 BCSC 630] dismissing this libel action over postings on an internet website because the plaintiffs had not proven the defendant published the alleged libels.
2007 September 26
Srougi v Lariviere
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) dismissed defamation claims over emails sent by the Defendant within the plaintiff’s workplace. The emails at issue related to a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant arising from their collaboration on the development of a website.
2007 September 4
Crookes v Holloway
The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed this libel action against Yahoo, a foreign defendant with no ties to British Columbia. “Yahoo has no offices in Canada, is not registered to do business in Canada and does not pay Canadian taxes. Yahoo does not do business and has no physical presence or bank accounts in British Columbia. The servers for Yahoo’s internet services ... are not located in Canada. The fact Yahoo can be accessed on the internet from a computer in British Columbia is not evidence it is carrying on business in British Columbia.”
The Court, applying Dow Jones Co. Inc. v Gutnick (2002), 194 Aust.L.R. 433 (H.C.) and Barrick Gold Corp. v Blanchard and Co., [2003] O.J. No. 5817 (S.C.), held that the defamation is committed at the time and place when a person downloads the impugned material from the internet.
The plaintiff in this case “neither alleged nor tendered any evidence that any individual in British Columbia has downloaded and read the impugned material posted ... on the website.”
2007 September 4
Amjay Ropes and Twines Ltd. v Cordex North America Inc.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out a paragraph in the plaintiff’s statement of claim which alleged that a statement on the defendant company’s website was defamatory. The court held that it was “plain and obvious” that it was “unlikely in the extreme that a reasonable farmer or operator of a retail store [the class of persons to whom the remarks were addressed] ...would understand the statements alleged to have the defamatory meaning imputed to them by the plaintiff.”
2007 May 23
Crozier v Cherniak
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an action brought by the plaintiff over a 1997 Law Society of Upper Canada report summarizing her disbarment proceedings which remained accessible until April 2004 through the Law Society website. The Court noted that on October 16, 2006, the Divisional Court had dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court decision upholding her disbarment and that two other judicial review applications brought by the plaintiff with respect to two other discipline decisions were both dismissed for delay on September 2006. The Court held that “[a]ll aspects of the plaintiff’s defamation cause of action are incapable of being proven and legally untenable” and denied leave to deliver a proposed amended statement of claim.
2007 May 16
Inform Cycle Ltd. v Rebound Inc. (c.o.b. Rebound Cycle)
On appeal from the November 16, 2006 decision of a Master, a Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench sustained the Master’s conclusion that the claims based on alleged vicarious liability should be dismissed on a summary judgment application by the defendant employer. “I agree with the Master’s conclusion that none of the cases cited by the Plaintiffs would extend the concept [of vicarious liability”] to the improper use of technological equipment which is available to virtually all employees in almost all business premises.” The defendant employee had established a domain name using the trade name of his former employer and redirected it to a gay pornographic website. The plaintiffs sued, inter alia, for defamation by innuendo.
2007 March 16
Crookes v Pilling
The British Columbia Supreme Court summarily dismissed this libel action against one of the four defendants (W de Simone) concerning allegedly defamatory website articles. The Defendant de Simone deposed in an affidavit that he was never involved in setting up the website or any of its contents: “I never wrote or published or approved any articles, nor did I have knowledge of the plaintiff. Prior to this litigation I have never even seen the articles regarding the plaintiff which are in issue.” The Court noted that since commencing the action the plaintiffs had about 10 months to find evidence linking the defendant to the publication but had failed to do so.
2006 November 28
Hemming v Newton
The British Columbia Supreme Court struck out a defence that an allegedly defamatory posting and an allegedly defamatory article on a website “consist of protected expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b) and to the extent the traditional common law of defamation would impose liability on the defendant for the posting, the law is to that extent of no force or effect.” In dismissing this defence, the Court relied on an earlier decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Moises v Canadian Newspaper Co. (c.o.b. Times-Colonist) (1996), 24 B.C.L.R. (3d) 211, where that court reviewed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1120, and stated: “What emerges from the foregoing authorities is a justified unwillingness to hold that the common law of defamation is inconsistent with Charter values. Freedom of expression is of fundamental importance in Canada, but so is the dignity of the individual and his or her right to protect and preserve a good reputation.” The Court held that it was plain and obvious that the Charter defence was bound to fail.
2006 November 16
Inform Cycle Ltd. v Rebound Inc. (c.o.b. Rebound Cycle)
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench summarily dismissed a claim for defamation against the defendant company holding that it not vicariously liable for the acts of its employee R Draper (an ex-employee of the plaintiff) who admitted doing “a very silly thing.” “Believing he was owed $1500 by his former employers, he used the internet connection of his present employer [the defendant company] to register the name of the former employer’s company as a domain name … hoping to sell the domain name to his former employers and make back the money he says he is owed. However, he didn’t stop there. He says that he then directed the domain name [of his former employer to his current employer’s website], and later to a pornographic website.”
Rejecting the plaintiff’s submissions there were sound policy reasons to hold the corporate defendant liable for the employee’s misuse of its computer facilities, particularly since the defendant had no written policy with respect to internet use or email, the Court noted there was no connection between R Draper’s redirection of the web domain address and his duties as an employee. “In today’s world, virtually all employees who work in offices, stores, or restaurants have access to computers, telephones and faxes. The Plaintiff’s argument would lead to the result that employers are liable for a single unauthorized act or an employee where communications equipment that is accessible and incidental to the employee’s position, such as computers and telephones, is used for the employee’s own improper purpose.”
2006 October 26
Stanley v Shaw
The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a lower court order dismissing a defamation claim against two defendants, who were alleged to be real estates agents and officers and directors of the corporate defendant. The plaintiff had complained that the two defendants “said and did nothing” when they received an allegedly defamatory email from a third individual defendant and that their “constituted an endorsement” of the defamatory allegations. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that “publication” is a necessary element of the tort of defamation and that “silence” did not satisfy that requirement.
2006 July 7
Tan v Yukon Territory
The Yukon Supreme Court struck out a defamation claim relating to an email which the plaintiff alleged was sent to him by the Public Service Commissioner in March, 2005, which the Commissioner also copied to the plaintiff’s alleged union representative. The plaintiff having failed to plead express malice in relation to that email, the Court held that the email was sent on an occasion of qualified privilege and the plaintiff’s defamation claim therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Alternatively, the Court would have dismissed the defamation claim pursuant to Rule 18A (summary trial) in view of the affidavit evidence before the Court.
2006 March 31
Angle v LaPierre
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that defamatory website criticism by the defendant parents targeted at several school principals, teachers and the teachers’ association was not protected by the defence of qualified privilege. The Court noted that the defence is “occasion specific” and that to succeed, the a defendant who pleaded qualified privilege had to prove that he or she was writing to discharge some public duty or interest and that “the persons to whom she [or he] …wrote had a corresponding duty or interest in hearing or reading those words.” In the case of the defamatory website postings, the Court concluded that such publications “to the world” went “beyond the bounds of reciprocity” and were not protected by qualified privilege. The Court rejected defence submissions that by sending “cease and desist” letters to defendants, the plaintiff teachers’ association s took essentially private disputes into the “broader public forum” such that the defendants were entitled to use that same forum for their publications. The Court noted that the association did not post the cease and desist letters on the Internet.
2006 February 27
Milne v Ontario (Securities Commission)
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out this claim for damages against the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) and its litigation counsel in its Enforcement Branch which was based in part on the publication on the OSC website of a Panel decision that the plaintiff “permitted, authorized and acquiesced in the conduct of Arlington [Securities Inc.]” which company the Panel found “failed to deal honestly and in good faith with its clients.” The plaintiff had not appealed the OSC decision to the Ontario Divisional Court, an option that was available to him pursuant to s. 9 of the Ontario Securities Act. The Court held that the website publication of the OSC decision was protected by privilege: “The OSC had a legitimate interest in bringing the decision to the attention of the investing public in accordance with its statutory mandate. It did so by posting a copy of the decision on its website.”
2005 January 11
Porter
v Robinson Sheppard Shapiro
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the evidentiary basis before the lower court judge was not sufficient to resolve the issue whether posting on the defendant law firm’s website of a communiqué summarizing a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co. (2002), 209 DLR (4th) 257 was a publication on an occasion of qualified privilege.
In Whiten, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and reinstated a $1 million jury award of punitive damages against an insurance company for bad faith denial of an insurance claim, in the process defining the basis on which punitive damages may be awarded by Canadian courts.
The lower court judge, whose summary judgment decision was reversed, had concluded that that defendant law firm had a duty, at least to their clients, to communicate the information, stating: "The Internet is probably the least expensive and most efficient means of conveying this information, not only to existing clients, but to potential clients, and to the insurance community, all of which have a reciprocal interest with the defendant in receiving the information."
A settlement of this libel action during the third day of trial means that the issue of qualified privilege for website postings will not reach the Court of Appeal for determination in this case.
[NOTE: Although Porter was mentioned in the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Whiten v Pilot Insurance, Porter was not the Pilot Insurance employee who denied Daphne Whiten’s insurance claim against Pilot nor was he in fact personally guilty of any bad faith towards Whiten. Porter was not even called to testify at the trial in Whiten v Pilot Insurance. Porter settled his libel action against the law firm on the third day of the trial. The settlement agreement contains certain terms which cannot be publicized on the Internet. Porter has been unsuccessful so far in attempts to have the Supreme Court of Canada clarify certain passages in its judgment to make Porter’s non-involvement clear to readers unfamiliar with the detailed evidence placed before the trial court.]
2003 November 12
Christian Labour Association of Canada v Retail Wholesale Union
The British Columbia Supreme Court rejected a common law defence of qualified privilege pleaded by two unions in relation to a defamatory posting on their website about the plaintiff, a rival union.
For details of this decision, click here.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Chapter Thirty-Five, Pre-Trial Disposition of Claims and Defences," "Summary Trial", page 666, 669-670.
2007 January 3
Regina School Division No. 4 v Hall
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal varied a lower court order striking a counterclaim against the plaintiff’s law firm as being frivolous and vexatious by permitting the individual defendant to counterclaim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The law firm had acted for the defendant in matters leading to his 1981 criminal code record (for which he was granted a full pardon in 1994) which became an issue when the plaintiff board caused a press release to be published in daily newspapers in Regina and Saskatoon announcing its legal action over “potentially libellous emails” which alleged that the school district, its schools and teachers are associated with an organization “directed and operated by an individual [the defendant] convicted of criminal offences.” The law firm conceded at the hearing of appeal that breach of fiduciary duty was properly pleaded by the defendant. “Since [the law firm] did act for the [individual defendant] in the criminal proceedings which played a prominent part in the subsequent proceedings it took on behalf of the Board against [the individual defendant], it cannot be said either that the pleadings in this respect disclosed no cause of action or that the pleadings were frivolous or vexatious. [The individual defendant] will, of course, have to prove at trial that the fiduciary duty of [the law firm] to [the individual defendant] continued to exist at the relevant time, notwithstanding that it had provided no services to [the individual defendant] for many years, that the members of the firm who acted for [the individual defendant in the criminal matters had left the firm many years before, and that the relevant files had been destroyed. While this may be difficult to prove or seem highly improbable, it cannot be said on the basis of the pleadings alone and the affidavits filed in support, that the claim is devoid of all merit of cannot possibly succeed. It is a matter for the trial judge to determine after hearing all relevant evidence. The Court of Appeal sustained the lower court’s decision to strike out the counterclaim for defamation relating to the allegation that the individual defendant had been convicted, noting that the pardon “cannot ... change the historical fact that the convictions occurred and continued to exist for a period of time.” The Court of Appeal ordered that the counterclaim be stayed, however, until the original defamation action by the Board against the defendants over an email authored by the individual defendant and information on the defendant’s website is tried and determined.
2007 November 9
Allen v Harrison Hot Springs (Village)
The British Columbia Supreme Court declined to decide issues raised by the petitioning ex-mayor for indemnity for legal fees he was incurring to defend a defamation action by a municipal employee which arose from certain publications by the petitioner during the municipal election campaign in the fall of 2005. The day after the petitioner lost the election, the municipal employee was reinstated to his position by the new mayor and council and filed a statement of claim alleging libel, including certain publications by the ex-mayor on his personal website. The Court held that the claim for indemnity would be best decided after the defamation trial has concluded.
2007 October 1
Fontaine v Courchene
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application by the plaintiff, a former First Nation Band Councillor, for the payment by the defendants of interim costs to fund her action in defamation over an email allegedly disseminated to Band members. The Court held the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the test for such a rare and exceptional order which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2007 SCC 2.
2007 September 25
Beidas v Pichler
The plaintiffs in this action in the Ontario Superior of Justice sued over articles disseminated on-line and obtained a pre-trial injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing any materials which may tend to identify the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the defendant sent an email to 11 people which the plaintiffs alleged violated the injunction. The plaintiffs, seeking to have the defendant found in contempt of court, issued summonses to certain proposed witnesses in connection with a contempt hearing.
In this pre-hearing ruling, a Master of the Court quashed the summonses served by the plaintiffs on four individual witnesses, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they were likely to have any evidence relevant to the contempt motion.
2007 May 23
Crozier v Cherniak
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected proposed amendments to the statement of claim in this action brought by an ex-lawyer in relation to allegedly defamatory statements contained in a Report published by the defendant Law Society of Upper Canada on the internet. The report was a brief summary of discipline proceedings against the plaintiff in 1997. The Court held that the Report was accurate and that the plaintiff’s proposed amendments therefore had no hope of success. “All aspects of the plaintiff’s defamation case are incapable of being proven and legally untenable.”
2006 November 17
A.T. v L.T.H.
In this lawsuit, the British Columbia Supreme Court continued (with certain modifications) an interlocutory consent injunction originally granted in May 2006 which prohibited the defendant ex-wife from publishing anything in any way, including the internet, relating to: (i) the plaintiff ex-husband; (ii) the couple’s pre-adolescent daughter; (iii) this proceeding; and/or (iv) another lawsuit in which the ex-wife sued a number of parties alleging wrongdoing. The Court noted that the ex-wife continued to allege that the plaintiff ex-husband physically and sexually abused and neglected the pre-adolescent daughter although her allegations were rejected (a) by another judge of the BC Supreme Court following a lengthy trial and (b) again years later by a different judge of the BC Supreme Court following many days of hearings.
Until the defendant ex-wife was restrained by the May, 2006 consent injunction, she used the internet to seek public support for her claims, posting information which described the alleged sexual abuse, provided particulars of the alleged abuse and personal details of the pre-adolescent daughter, such as her name, photograph, school name and home address.
The Court noted that the ex-wife’s allegations would be defamatory and stated that “injunctions restraining anticipated defamation are rare but can be made in appropriate circumstances, such as to prevent irreparable harm by protecting the identity of people alleged to have perpetrated sexual assaults.” Although the Court accordingly granted a continuation of the injunction (with minor modifications), it required the ex-husband to either amend his claim in this lawsuit within 20 days to seek a permanent injunction or to commence separate legal proceedings seeking such relief.
2006 November 7
Szewczyk v Real Estate Council of Ontario
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissing his action against the Council “claiming that the discipline decision [of the defendant Council] was wrong and that the [Council] had defamed him by publishing its decision on the Internet.” In a very brief ruling, the Court of Appeal held that having failed to appeal the Council’s decision, it was not open to the plaintiff to bring this action as it “constitutes an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the decision.”
2006 November 1
Sansone v D’Addario
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim to claim damages arising from allegedly defamatory comments about the plaintiff on the internet and elsewhere, reasoning that although the evidence relating to the alleged defamation would have some peripheral relevance to the main action for alleged breach of contract, the defamation claim would add undue complexity, possible confusion and probable delay. The Court noted that the plaintiff had the right to commence a separate action concerning the alleged defamation and left open the possibility that the plaintiff could apply for an order consolidating the two lawsuits after the completion of discoveries
2006 July 21
Crozier v Cherniak
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out all aspects of claims by the plaintiff for libel and damage to reputation for publishing allegedly untrue statements on a website and in other publications. The bulk of the defamation claim had already been raised in two previous civil actions, both of which were dismissed. The Court therefore ruled that it an abuse of process to raise the same points again in this action. The only part of the claim not previously dismissed “failed to set out a coherent cause of action” and was therefore struck out with leave to make one application to amend the statement of claim to express the plaintiff’s claim in a comprehensible fashion.
2006 May 4
Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc. v Encon Group Inc.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal sustained a decision that an insurer, Co-Operators Insurance Company of New Brunswick, had a duty to defend the Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc. “CCNB”) against an action for defamation brought by Bennett Environmental Inc, on the basis that Bennett’s claim did not fall squarely within the exclusionary provisions of the insurance policy held by CCNB. The Court held it was impossible to distinguish between legal defence costs relating to allegations covered by the policy (i.e. certain material published in a newspaper) and those allegations not covered (website material); the latter being excluded from coverage under the policy.
2006 April 26
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench struck out a counterclaim against the plaintiff School Board’s law firm in an action in which the Board alleged it was defamed by two emails and an article on an internet website. The counterclaim complained, among other things, about two letters from the law firm demanding compliance with the Board’s request for a cessation of communication and promising court action otherwise, for commencing this lawsuit, and for causing a report of the filing of the lawsuit to be published in two newspapers. The Court concluded that the law firm was named in the counterclaim “only because the law firm is doing its job as counsel for the Board” and that “the counterclaim against the law firm is intended to annoy or embarrass the Board, and is advanced with the ulterior motive of removing the law firm as counsel for the Board.”
2006 April 7
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an action by the Town of Halton Hills against a local internet-based news purveyor on the basis that defamation actions by government are barred by the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2006 March 6
The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an interim injunction preventing the petitioners from publishing information in the media or on the internet concerning the respondents or this proceeding despite the fact that the respondents had not yet filed pleadings that defined a claim for defamation against the petitioners, noting that affidavits of the respondents described some facts which, if believed, could lead the court to conclude the petitioners “have encouraged negative publicity” for one company.” The court held that the petitioners would not be inconvenienced by an injunction because they denied having generated negative publicity in the past and said they had no desire to do so in the future.
2005 November 18
Mallard v Shirley
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found a non-party in civil contempt of Court in part for distributing a private confidential KPMG Interim Report (copied to the litigation parties pursuant to an Anton Piller Order) by-email to numerous other non-parties, without first obtaining leave of the Court. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court found that this publication by e-mails was a violation of the sub judice rule, and presented a real risk of interference with the due administration of justice.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench found the defendant in civil contempt of court for transmitting certain emails which were held by the court to breach an interim injunction obtained earlier by the plaintiff restraining the defendant “from making and publishing further statements whether oral or written and whether distributed via the internet or otherwise or making or permitting the further distribution and publication about any or all of the plaintiffs to this action.”
2005 September 27
Cooper v Hennan
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ordered the plaintiff’s to provide particulars of the precise words they complain of in an email, portions of which had been incorporated by the plaintiffs in an Amended Statement of Claim. The Court held that allowing the plaintiffs to “incorporate whole paragraphs of an e-mail into their Amended Statement of Claim would be tantamount to a fishing expedition and would encourage speculative lawsuits. Further, the Court held that the Amended Statement of Claim should identify at least one recipient of the defamatory publication beyond themselves. In this connection, the Court stated: “With the exception of the internet ‘chat rooms’ mentioned in the Amended Statement of Claim, I am unsympathetic to the plaintiff’s concern that publication via e-mail is ubiquitous and accessible by multiple people. Sending a publication by e-mail is different that posting it on the internet; in each e-mail there is a list of addresses to whom the message has been sent. I regard email as being similar to regular mail because there is usually both an identified sender and recipient. I have seen no evidence that makes this case an exception.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice made an order pursuant to the Ontario Rules of Court entitling the plaintiff to examine a non-party Internet service provider in order to determine the identity of the John Doe defendant.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, "Chapter Twenty-Seven, Identification of Potential Defendants", page 727.
1998 June 00
Philip Services Corp. v John Doe aka Addicted2PHV
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice made an order pursuant to the Ontario Rules of Court requiring a non-party Internet service provider to provide information to the plaintiff identifying persons who made allegedly defamatory postings to a website.
2006 05 12 - Amoudi v Brisard & Anor [2006] EWHC 1062 (QB)
2006 03 10 - Bunt v Tilley & Ors [2006] EWHC 407 (QB)
2006 02 15 - Creative Resins International Ltd. v Glass am Europe Ltd. [2006]
EWHC 182 (QB)
2005
07 29 - Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 1007
2005
07 05 - Steinberg v Englefield [2005] EWCA Civ 824
2005
06 15 - Jameel v Times Newspapers Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1219 (QB)
2005
06 14 - McKeith v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1162
(QB)
2005 05 25 - Carroll v Kynaston [2005] EWHC 927 (QB)
2005
05 12 - Campbell-James v Guardian Media Group plc [2005] EWHC
893 (QB)
2005
05 12 - Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2005] EWHC 892 (QB)
2005 04 29 - Waters v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 394
2005
04 08 - Miller v Associated Newspapers Limited [2005] EWHC 557
(QB)
2005
02 03 - Dow Jones & Co Inc. v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75
2005
02 03 - Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (No. 2) [2005]
EWCA Civ 74
2004
11 05 - Greene v Associated Newspapers Limited [2004] EWCA Civ
1462
2004 10 29 -
Richardson v Schwarzenegger, [2004] EWHC 2422 (QB)
2004 10 19 - King v Lewis & Ors, [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 (CA)
2004 09 17 - Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc [2004] SASC 286
2004 08 17 - University of Newlands v Nationwide Pty News Ltd.
(Wellington, New Zealand)
2004 06 04 - Askew v Morris & Ors [2004] WASC 117
2004 03 22 - Waters v Western Australian Newspapers Ltd. [2004] VSC 124
2004 02 06 - King v Lewis & Ors, [2004] EWHC 168 (QB)
2003 05 22 - Harrods Limited v Dow Jones & Company Inc.,[2003]
EWHC 1162 (QB)
2002 12 10 - Dow Jones & Co. v Gutnick, [2002] H.C.A. 56
2001 12 05 - Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd., [2001] EWCA Civ 1805
2003 07 24 - Cullen v White, [2003] WASC 153
2002 09 26 - Mickelberg v 6PR Southern Cross Radio Pty Ltd & Ors [2002]
WASCA 270
Back to top |
