The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court dismissed an application by the defendants to strike out a defamation claim relating to an internal RCMP email sent in April , 2011 from the plaintiff's former RCMP supervisor to other RCMP staff concerning her admission to the secure area of the Spruce Grove, Alberta detachment. The plaintiff’s lawsuit concerned allegations published in a magazine distributed in Montreal and on an Internet website which was not alleged to be located in Montreal The Quebec Code of Civil Procedure permitted the plaintiff to bring the action in his jurisdiction of residence if a libel in the press was involved.

The Court held, however, that the appropriate forum to litigate the defamation claim was in the Superior Court of Alberta or in the Federal Court of Canada. The fact the words complained of were also published in an electronic medium could not be used to defeat this right.

who is alan rosenberg dating-1who is alan rosenberg dating-68who is alan rosenberg dating-89

Mc Conchie Law Corporation does not express any view concerning the validity of the findings of fact made by the courts whose decisions are listed below. Accordingly, the issue of “publication” is a matter of proof, by evidence, in each individual case.

Findings of fact may be discussed, however, to the extent necessary to provide context for a court's decision. This statute substantially codifies the common law but litigants and their legal counsel should give its provisions close consideration. By failing to lead any evidence at all of “publication” in Ontario, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the alleged tort of defamation was committed in Ontario.

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.

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 also refused to decline jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, the lawsuit was ordered by a justice of the District of Quebec to be transferred to the District of Joliette. 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 judge noted: (i) the individual defendants were domiciled in Ontario; and (ii) the litigation had been proceeding for some time and was substantially advanced. [Note: This decision turned on the wording of the Quebec Civil Procedure Code] The British Columbia Supreme Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear defamation claims brought against the defendants, holding that “all of the allegedly defamatory statements, video, website postings, pamphlets, and other communications relate to a tort alleged to have been committed in British Columbia because the harm allegedly suffered by the plaintiff was suffered in British Columbia where it resides, where it carries on business, where it employs contractors and employees, where some of its customers are located, and where it is regulated.” The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed this libel action against Yahoo, a foreign defendant with no ties to British Columbia. The articles related to the plaintiff’s activities in a prior posting in Ivory Coast as an employee of the United Nations.

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 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 ...