In Breeden v Black, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a similar damages undertaking given by Lord Black was a significant factor in the analysis of "most substantial harm to reputation." In my view, the damages undertaking provided by the plaintiff is a very significant factor which, in light of the other evidence …., leads to the conclusion that the most substantial harm to the plaintiff's reputation is in Ontario. 80; affirmed: 2011 SCC 47 (Can LII), 2011 SCC 47; J.-G. Walker, Canadian Conflict of Laws (2005), 6th ed.), vol. The statements in question may well have been made in the U. The court concluded that the corporate defendant publisher was carrying on business in Ontario by disseminating copies of the book for sale by bookstores in Ontario and by making the book available for sale in Ontario via the Internet.

The Ontario Superior Court declined to rule whether an internet article that is published internationally on-line by a newspaper in another country can be considered to be part of a “newspaper printed and published in Ontario” within the meaning of the on the basis no expert evidence had been put before the Court by the defendant journalist who sought to rely on sections 5 and 6 of that statute. The court held that publication occurs where the allegedly defamatory matter is downloaded from the Internet or where a book is read. C.), held that the defamation is committed at the time and place when a person downloads the impugned material from the internet.

Note: For the best experience with the electronic form, use Chrome as your browser.

Supervisors: Submit Performance Evaluations to HR by March 31.

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. Wherever possible, a hypertext link is provided to the full text of a Canadian decision.

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.

On this basis, including the fact that Sciquest had a business presence, customers and a reputation in Ontario, the test for jurisdiction of the Ontario court had been satisfied. The Court of Appeal noted that Black’s claims were limited to damages to his reputation in Ontario.

The Court went on to hold that, in any event, the plaintiff had complied with s. “It was and should have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendants that, in writing, researching, editing and publishing Noir Canada, dissemination and marketing of Noir Canada in Ontario and via the internet would or could cause harm to the plaintiff in Ontario. 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 ...

5(1) in providing a notice of libel within six weeks of discovering the libel and had also commenced the action within the three month limitation period set out in s. As a result, I am of the view that the above activities have rendered the defendants subject to the jurisdiction of this forum.” The Ontario Superior Court rejected arguments by the defendant, a competitor of RIM, that the Ontario court did not have jurisdiction, or alternatively, that Ontario was not a convenient forum to hear the trial of this action. 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act, and alleged injurious falsehood and unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s economic relations. on the website.” 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.

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. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from 2015 ONSC 1128 and held that an internet libel action based on a newspaper article uploaded in Israel to the defendant newspaper's Hebrew and English-language websites can and should proceed in Ontario. The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to the defendants to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which sustained a lower court decision holding (i) that there is a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the defamation claims brought by the plaintiff Banro Corporation and (ii) that Ontario is the appropriate forum to hear the claims.

See Mc Conchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, " British Columbia In British Columbia, issues of jurisdiction are now governed by the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S. The appellate court noted that the motion judge in the court below found that the article came to the attention of many of the people in the plaintiff's Toronto office and that it is likely that 200-300 people read the article online. The plaintiff Banro is an Ontario company based in Toronto.

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.