The Supreme Court of Canada: internet defamation, choice of law and libel tourism – Antonin I Pribetic

This post is the second of a two-part series of posts on the recent Canadian conflict of laws trilogy in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC  17 (“Van Breda”); Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp., 2012 SCC 18 (“Banro”) and Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19. (“Black”) for Internet defamation, choice of law/forum shopping and libel tourism.  In an earlier post (on the Trial Warrior Blog) I discussed the the Van Breda decision and its implications to Canadian conflict of laws generally. 

News: Canada Rolls Out Welcome Mat for Libel Tourists – Paul B. Schabas and Erin Hoult

The Supreme Court of Canada today released two decisions regarding assumed jurisdiction in defamation matters that leave the door to libel tourism wide-open in Canada.  The two cases – Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp., 2012 SCC 18 and Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19 – involve defamation suits commenced in Ontario against non-resident defendants.

News: Appeal heard in Canadian “no defamation in a blogging dialogue” case, judgment reserved

In September 2011 we had a post about Baglow v Smith, a potentially very significant decision in Canada. The first instance decision of Annis J  suggested that an apparently defamatory statement made in a debate on a blog or internet forum may not be found to be defamatory if the plaintiff previously engaged in the debate but did not respond to the statement despite having the opportunity to do so.

Case Law: Jones v Tsige – the Ontario Courts recognise a privacy tort – Hugh Tomlinson QC

In a judgment handed down on 18 January 2012, the Court of Appeal in Ontario recognised, for the first time, that the common law of Ontario included a free-standing tort of intrusion on seclusion.  In Jones v. Tsige (2012 ONCA 32) the Court overturned the decision of the first instance judge striking out the claim on the basis that there was no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario.  The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered judgment for the plaintiff with damages of Can$10,000. 

Case Law: Crookes v Newton: never say ‘never’ – Gervase de Wilde

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Crookes v Newton 2011 SCC 47, written up here for Inforrm by Paul Schabas and Jon Goheen, has been hailed as a victory for free speech online. The judgment offers the first definitive answer in the common law world to the question of whether linking to defamatory material online attracts liability for the publication of that material. That answer is a resounding and seemingly definitive ‘no’.

Supreme Court of Canada Protects Hyperlinkers – Paul Schabas and Jon Goheen

Should defamatory material accessible by hyperlink from a blog be taken to have been incorporated as part of the blog?  That question was raised last year in Ali v. Associated Newspapers Inc., [2010] EWHC 100 (QB).  In that case, Mr. Justice Eady suggested in obiter that it was unlikely that a general rule of thumb would be adopted, and that the question would depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

Case Law: Baglow v. Smith: Removing the Defamatory Sting From Online Debates on Blogs and Message Boards – Matthew Nied

On 30 August 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down judgment in the case of Baglow v. Smith, 2011 ONSC 5131. The decision suggests that an allegedly defamatory statement made in a debate on a blog or internet forum may not be found to be defamatory if the plaintiff previously engaged in the debate but did not respond to the statement despite having the opportunity to do so.

Another Blow to Access to Information: Supreme Court of Canada Denies Access to Political Documents in Ministers’ Offices

A case that spanned almost ten years and three changes of Canada’s top political office ended last month in a setback for access to information in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2001 SCC 25, (“Canada v. Canada”) means that documents such as a Minister’s agenda

The Draft Defamation Bill: Input from Canada – Paul Schabas

The Canadian Media Lawyers Association has submitted comments to the Joint Committee considering the draft Defamation Bill (the Submission can be read here) While Canadian and English defamation law is similar in many ways, Canada has gone in its own direction on some of the issues raised in the Bill, such as the defence of fair comment, responsible communication, and an explicit recognition of the reportage defence.  These differences highlight some of the concerns raised by the Bill.  Further, Canada’s recent defamation jurisprudence is now, finally, grappling with reaching a better balance between protection of reputation and freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which may be of particular relevance in England as its courts also strive to achieve an appropriate balance between these competing constitutional rights under the Human Rights Act.

A Canadian Perspective on Libel Tourism – Antonin I. Pribetic

As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada (except the province of Quebec) has followed the English law of defamation. For this reason alone, Canadian journalists, bloggers and defamation lawyers, should take note of the recent tabling of the U.K. Government’s Draft Defamation Bill, which will undoubtedly have some impact on how Canadian defamation law in the digital age responds to the tension between freedom of expression on the one hand, and the protection of reputation and privacy, on the other.