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.
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. Most are from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which does not display its decisions on its website.
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.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the context of a privacy claim, ordered a stay of proceedings by a British Columbia resident against the defendant Facebook, Inc. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a defence motion to stay six related libel actions brought by the plaintiff Conrad Black holding that there was a real and substantial connection with Ontario and that the province was a convenient and appropriate forum.