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.
Further, such an Order was not justified in all the circumstances. Yahoo does not do business and has no physical presence or bank accounts in British Columbia. The Court of Appeal heard from an intervener, Media Coalition, which suggested alternative approaches to the issue of jurisdiction which the Court declined to adopt in this case, stating “[i]t may be that in some future case involving internet publication, this court will find it useful to consider and apply one or more of the proposed approaches.” See Mc Conchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, ", less than 250 copies of which were delivered in hard copy to subscribers or newsstands in Canada (none in British Columbia).
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.
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.