June 11, 2018
On June 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the test for jurisdiction over an allegedly defamatory Internet article – the reputational effects of which can reach around the globe. But those who expected the Court’s decision in Haaretz v. Goldhar to change the law on jurisdiction in the Internet age will be disappointed: while the defendants successfully obtained a stay on the basis that Israel was a clearly more appropriate forum, their success is attributed to the Court’s fresh analysis of the facts – and not to new law. The decision leaves many (including the media) waiting for guidance on a jurisdictional test for a clearly more appropriate forum responsive to the realities of the Internet age.
Goldhar is a Canadian businessman living primarily in Ontario and known among the business who’s-who for his entrepreneurial successes. He also maintains an apartment in Israel, owns its most popular soccer team and enjoys a different level of celebrity there. Haaretz is Israel’s oldest daily newspaper, published in in English and Hebrew and in both print and electronically; its print circulation is about 70,000 and electronic content is available worldwide. Haaretz printed an article about Goldhar about how he runs his soccer club. Goldhar considered the article defamatory and filed a lawsuit in Ontario. Haaretz applied for a stay of the action on the basis the Ontario court didn’t have jurisdiction, and even if it did, then it should not exercise that jurisdiction because Israel was a clearly more appropriate forum for the issue to be tried. Both the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Court of Appeal found Ontario had jurisdiction and that Israel is not a clearly more appropriate forum, and denied the stay application. However, while the Supreme Court of Canada agreed Ontario had jurisdiction, it decided Israel was a clearly more appropriate forum than Ontario and a stay should be granted. The Court viewed the question simply: did the Ontario courts have jurisdiction, and if so should it decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favour of a clearly more appropriate forum? To answer it, the Court applied the same analysis using the same well-established tests – despite the new factors the Internet publication platform introduced:
Real & Substantial Connection. The Court reiterated that to establish jurisdiction, there must be a “real and substantial connection” between the subject matter of the litigation (the defamation) and the chosen forum (Ontario). Here, the fact the wrong was committed in Ontario (and anywhere else the article was read) established a presumptive connecting factor. But this presumption has always been rebuttable, particularly important in the Internet context in which, as the Court conceded, it could be easily established based on a mere click or online download. A party can still rebut the presumptive connecting factor by showing the connection between the forum and the subject matter is insufficient: despite the connection, it’s not reasonable to expect the defendant to respond to proceedings commenced in the chosen forum. And the presumption must be rebutted by factors other than those in the “clearly more appropriate” forum analysis, which remains distinct. For example, the presumptive connecting factor in a defamation case is rebutted where a Plaintiff has no reputation in the chosen forum.
Clearly More Appropriate Forum. The Court also reiterated that if jurisdiction isn’t rebutted, a court must next decide whether to decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favour of a clearly more appropriate forum. Pursuant to the traditional test, the defendant bears the burden of showing that another forum is clearly more appropriate because it’s fairer and more efficient based on the analysis of five factors: the comparative convenience and expense for the parties and/or witnesses; fairness to both parties; loss of legitimate juridical advantage; likelihood of enforcement; and the applicable law. In this case, it was the applicable law factor where the defendant invited change. The defendant suggested that in Internet defamation cases the analysis should be guided by a “substantial harm test”: the defendant shouldn’t be required to defend all over the world – a real possibility in an Internet defamation case – but only where the plaintiff suffered the most harm. And since the article was about Goldhar’s businesses in Israel and reached a primarily Israeli audience, that should be Israel. All judges agreed that typically, the law of the place where the tort occurred is the law that applies (lex loci delicti), and where jurisdiction arises from the location of occurrence of the tort, and lex loci delicti is applied, the applicable law factor generally favours the chosen forum. However, the judges didn’t agree on whether lex loci delicti responds to the realities of Internet defamation and its inevitably multijurisdictional nature – and a majority of the Court’s judges refused to adopt the substantial harm test, though were divided on why: three didn’t decide whether to adopt it because in this case, there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to apply it so it wouldn’t have mattered; two would adopt the test to determine the applicable law in the Internet defamation context going forward; and three point blank refused to adopt it. The Court ultimately determined that is in this case, Israel was the clearly more appropriate forum, but based on the facts – and the same old legal test.
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Media & Entertainment Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2018. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Aug 10, 2023
Canada’s first Tech Talent Strategy aims to aggressively attract tech talent to “fuel innovation and drive emerging technologies forward”.…
Jun 9, 2023
You arrive at the legendary Madison Square Garden to catch the Mariah Carey concert. It’s the big event of the trip – the reason you came to…
Feb 1, 2023
On January 26, 2023, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) released a report of findings requiring companies using targeted…
Jan 26, 2023
In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…
Nov 21, 2022
On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…
Jul 20, 2022
There’s a new privacy law coming to Canada. In June, the federal government introduced a complete overhaul of the privacy law regime that both…
Jul 18, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…
May 20, 2022
On May 22, 2010 (affectionately known as “Bitcoin Pizza Day”), a Floridian bought two Papa John's pizzas with Bitcoin. The day is famous…
Mar 31, 2022
On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…
Feb 8, 2022
We updated this publication on December 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect, significantly…
Feb 3, 2022
On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…
Jan 25, 2022
More and more people are using smart contracts: the global smart contracts market was valued at USD $145M in 2020; it’s projected to be valued…
Dec 16, 2021
We updated this publication on December 21, 2022. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen…
Nov 12, 2021
On November 4, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law regarding when a judgment debtor “carries on business” for the purpose of…
Aug 3, 2021
On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada refined the test for determining when a plaintiff has discovered a claim for the purpose of a…
Mar 1, 2021
The Supreme Court of Canada continues to develop and clarify the organizing principle of good faith performance in contract law. In its 2014…
Jan 18, 2021
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 2014 case of Bhasin v. Hrynew, recognized a general organizing principle of good faith performance in…
Dec 2, 2020
Using social media influencers and micro-influencers is an increasingly effective marketing strategy. Social media use is pervasive; 94% of…
Nov 17, 2020
We updated this publication on July 11, 2023. Spurred by the COVID-19 Pandemic and bricks-and-mortar closures, businesses – from SMEs to…
Aug 12, 2020
This publication has been updated as of May 5, 2021. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led many employees to continue working from home, by…
Jul 6, 2020
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…
Jun 12, 2020
The financial technology (Fintech) industry uses technology to support and enhance financial and banking services.
May 11, 2020
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a much-awaited decision regarding the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The CCAA is…
Mar 10, 2020
The global COVID-19 (a.k.a. Coronavirus or SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has implications for many commercial relationships, its evolving nature and…
Feb 14, 2020
NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law,…
Jan 14, 2020
On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…
Nov 18, 2019
Effective December 1, 2019, the New Brunswick government will finally finalize the reform of N.B.’s money judgment enforcement regime with the…
Dec 4, 2018
On November 30, 2018, a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada decided the media doesn’t get any special protection from the…
Aug 20, 2018
Every organization subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) - every organization that…
Aug 3, 2018
As of November 1, 2018, organizations in Canada subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) will face…
Jul 18, 2018
Most businesses – from startups to SMEs to multi-nationals, and from private family-owned businesses to public corporations – will use…
Jun 13, 2018
Businesspeople (and their legal counsel) are on the road more than ever before: according to Statistics Canada, while Canada-U.S. traffic is…
Apr 2, 2018
Equity compensation plans are a valuable and versatile tool for many corporations, from early-stage startups to established blue-chips.…
Feb 15, 2018
Mandatory interlocutory injunctions - court orders, made in the context of a lawsuit, that a party take positive action as opposed to refrain…
Jan 12, 2018
Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…
Nov 16, 2017
Corporations are the leading business vehicle in modern commerce. For startups, properly structuring and incorporating is critical to avoid…
Oct 31, 2017
Intellectual Property (IP) can be a valuable asset – even the most valuable asset – of a business. So it’s worth making sure the business…
Jul 18, 2017
On July 12, 2017, the Federal Court of Canada made it clear that there are but two ways to avoid a tariff set by the Copyright Board of Canada…
Jul 13, 2017
When growing your business, you face many decisions, including choosing the business structure that is right for you. Your legal team can be…
Jun 28, 2017
On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…
Jun 23, 2017
On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…
Jun 7, 2017
On June 7, 2017, the federal government repealed the regulations that would have brought into effect the sections of Canada’s Anti Spam…
Jun 5, 2017
On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric…
Mar 30, 2017
Social media platforms, like Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook and GooglePlus, arguably have more followers and are more closely…
Mar 30, 2017
There are very few examples of a Canadian court interpreting and opining on the provisions of an information technology contract. So the Ontario…
Mar 15, 2017
On March 9, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal stopped building inspection claims in their tracks when it decided that a defence based section…
Feb 24, 2017
This publication has been updated as at January 12, 2023. Many organization (66%) store the personal information of customers. employees,…
Jan 13, 2017
On January 11, 2017, Emera Inc. offered an electrifying opportunity for renewable energy developers to potentially access the New England…
Dec 15, 2016
On December 13, 2016, the Province of Nova Scotia released for comment draft regulations that will establish the Solar for Community Buildings…
Dec 7, 2016
Recently, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court denied a motion for a temporary stay of proceedings to prevent the deployment of certain tidal devices…
Nov 28, 2016
On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…
Nov 22, 2016
On November 17, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada decided a mortgagee has the mortgagor’s implied consent to disclose its discharge statement…
Oct 21, 2016
All shareholders – whether in a startup, a small or large business or a family-owned business – can benefit from a shareholders’…
Oct 19, 2016
We updated this publication on January 17, 2023. For many businesses, large and small, their “Intellectual Property” (IP) is one of their…
Oct 19, 2016
Business owners wear many hats – including employer. Your employees may be your business’s greatest asset, but they could also be your…
Aug 17, 2016
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…
Jul 19, 2016
On July 15, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada, in a long-awaited decision, resisted the invitation to re-write the traditional rules for the…
May 10, 2016
This publication has been updated as at April 18, 2022. Access to sufficient capital is always a business issue, from the startup stage right…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
Jan 18, 2016
On January 14, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court decided that Canadians have a clear privacy interest in their records of their cellular…
Sep 29, 2015
The anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation (CASL) took effect on July 1, 2014 amidst hype, controversy and dire warnings. Were…
Jul 29, 2015
On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…
Jul 21, 2015
On July 16, 2015, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered an insurer to produce a significant amount of its financial and business information…
Jun 2, 2015
Effective April 22, 2015 the NS Government enacted the NS Missing Persons Act, lowering the threshold for police to get an order to access…
Mar 25, 2015
On March 3, 2015 Canada’s Privacy Commissioner determined that Health Canada breached privacy laws by mailing letters to over 40,000 Marihuana…
Mar 6, 2015
On March 5, 2015, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (the CRTC, the main agency charged with administering and enforcing most of CASL)…
Feb 18, 2015
The new NS Limitations of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started…
Dec 11, 2014
On December 11, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada continued its trend to recognize privacy rights – and develop the law to protect them –…
Dec 11, 2014
On January 15, 2015, the software provisions of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) will take effect. CASL’s anti-spam sections, touted…
Dec 1, 2014
The construction industry - project owners, contractors, subcontractors and trades - might be relaxing, ignoring the hype around Canada’s…
Nov 14, 2014
On November 13, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) effected a significant development in Canadian contract law by recognizing the…
Nov 3, 2014
Note: On November 20, 2014 the NS Government passed the final form of Bill 64, Limitations of Actions Act into law. The final form of the Act…
Oct 14, 2014
CASL’s anti-spam sections came into force on July 1, 2014. Every organization that CASL affects should now be complying with it – and their…
Sep 9, 2014
Effective October 1, 2014, the New Brunswick Rules of Court will change – some Rules for the first time since they came into effect in 1982.…
Aug 1, 2014
Most Canadians have heard about Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): we’ve been bombarded with “CASL Compliant” emails asking us to…
Jun 16, 2014
On June 13, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their online activities, and…
Jun 12, 2014
The countdown to CASL is almost over: there are only 13 business days until the anti-spam provisions of CASL – and most of the penalties for…
May 26, 2014
On May 23, 2014 the Federal Court of Canada decided the Federal Treasury Board Secretariat’s interpretation of the policy for compensating…
May 8, 2014
On July 1, 2014 – less than two months from now - the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) take effect. Individuals…
Apr 15, 2014
The countdown to CASL is on: on July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”) take effect. Individuals…
Feb 28, 2014
On July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (aka “CASL”) will take effect. CASL is: Broad. It applies…
Feb 28, 2014
On July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (aka “CASL”) take effect. CASL will apply to just about every…
May 21, 2013
In its April 2013 decision in Re Stan, the Alberta Securities Commission provides issuers with a practical approach to the assessment of both a…
Jan 8, 2013
On November 19, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ruled a B.C. public school system’s failure to provide adequate and…
Mar 6, 2009
“Contamination Claims: Long Tails or Just Dogs? Practical and Legal Issues of Litigating Contaminant Slow-Leak Cases”, Cdn Journal of…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.