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.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 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.”.
Mc Conchie Law Corporation can not accept any responsibility for keeping information on this list up-to-date although it strives to do so. “Under the Libel and Slander Act …defamatory words in a newspaper or in a broadcast are “deemed to be published.” However, as the Supreme Court of Canada recently observed in Crookes v. 14, there is “no such presumption in relation to material published on the Internet.” Any significant shift in policy in relation to this issue would have to come from the Legislature.
Cases of interest should be carefully up-dated before any reliance is placed on them. Further, the issue is clearly not a matter that is properly the subject of judicial notice.
With respect to the defence argument that Israel was a more convenient forum, the Court of Appeal held that the motions judge was entitled to find that reluctant foreign witnesses "could be compelled to provide evidence in Israel through the use of letters of request (issued by the Ontario Court to the foreign court] and that videoconferencing was a potential means of obtaining the evidence of any witnesses unwilling to come to Ontario. In the court of Ontario, the defendants brought unsuccessful motions to stay the action on the basis there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was not the convenient forum for the trial of the action.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an application to permanently stay this lawsuit on the basis it was an abuse of process because the plaintiff's parallel Korean lawsuit over the allegedly defamatory emails and blog postings had been dismissed by the Jeju Regional Court in Korea as a result of the plaintiff's failure to comply with a Korean court order requiring him to post security for the defendant's costs. Washington Post 2005 Can LII 32906 (ON CA), (2005), 258 D. For more information about the facts, see the brief Court of Appeal decision: 2010 ONCA 416 and the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice: 23 February 2009, COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-00356266-0000. C.) The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the March 31, 2009 decision of the Ontario Superior Court which confirmed that Ontario has jurisdiction and is the appropriate and convenient forum for the plaintiff’s six defamation actions against directors, advisors and a Vice President of Hollinger International Inc. Applying the test for jurisdiction in Van Breda v Village Resorts Limited (2010), 98 O. (3d) 721 (CA) [on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada], the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected defence arguments that treating the place of the tort as the place in which the allegedly defamatory statements were accessed in not appropriate in the context of libel.