The Court also rejected defence arguments that the plaintiff's lawsuit in Ontario constituted " The Quebec Superior Court, District of Quebec, dismissed an application by the defence for a change of venue in a defamation action which related in part to an email sent by the defendant to a customer of the plaintiffs in Quebec (City) and the publication of a legal notice. Even if an Ontario libel judgment favouring Black might be unenforceable in the United States, it would still have significant value to Black as a vindication of his Ontario reputation.The District of Quebec was the appropriate venue, because that is where the damages to the plaintiffs' commercial reputation would have occurred. 32-42; presently under reserve in the Supreme Court of Canada:  S. The Quebec Court (Civil Division – Small Claims), District of Montreal, dismissed an application by the defendant to transfer these defamation proceedings to the District of Joliette.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.
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.
In Breeden v Black, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a similar damages undertaking given by Lord Black was a significant factor in the analysis of "most substantial harm to reputation." In my view, the damages undertaking provided by the plaintiff is a very significant factor which, in light of the other evidence …., leads to the conclusion that the most substantial harm to the plaintiff's reputation is in Ontario. 80; affirmed: 2011 SCC 47 (Can LII), 2011 SCC 47; J.-G. Walker, Canadian Conflict of Laws (2005), 6th ed.), vol. The statements in question may well have been made in the U. The court concluded that the corporate defendant publisher was carrying on business in Ontario by disseminating copies of the book for sale by bookstores in Ontario and by making the book available for sale in Ontario via the Internet.
The Ontario Superior Court declined to rule whether an internet article that is published internationally on-line by a newspaper in another country can be considered to be part of a “newspaper printed and published in Ontario” within the meaning of the on the basis no expert evidence had been put before the Court by the defendant journalist who sought to rely on sections 5 and 6 of that statute. The court held that publication occurs where the allegedly defamatory matter is downloaded from the Internet or where a book is read. C.), held that the defamation is committed at the time and place when a person downloads the impugned material from the internet.
The Court noted that a previous Court ruling had rejected the substance of that application. The Court held that there was a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the facts giving rise to the lawsuit, rejecting defence submissions that Ontario was not implicated because the statements at issue were made in the United States or the United Kingdom by United States citizens regarding a United States patent infringement lawsuit. should be transferred from the judicial district of Trois-Rivières to the judicial district of Montrèal where the defendants reside. 68 of the Quebec Civil Procedure Code required a lawsuit for defamation based on publication on a website to be brought in the judicial district of Joliette where the defendant resided and where his computer was located. The Court noted that although the print edition of the defendant newspaper “is directed to readers in India for the most part, the [newspaper’s] website is accessed by an approximate average of 8,000 readers per day in Canada, a significant portion of whom are in Ontario.” In arriving at the conclusion that the action should be heard in Ontario, the Court noted that the plaintiffs had commenced defamation actions against three other newspapers distributed in Ontario and read by members of the Punjabi-speaking population which had reportedly published the same article or a version of it.
The Court also noted that the plaintiff sought damages for invasion of privacy, which is not subject to the one year limitation. The Court noted that the impugned statements “were disseminated in Ontario by direct contact with the media or by the internet.” Referring to Crookes v Holloway,  B. The Court rejected submissions by the plaintiff that the website publication was, by analogy, a “libelle de presse” (newspaper libel), in which case a plaintiff would be entitled to bring the case in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides. The desirability of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings was a factor which the court held weighed heavily in favour of the plaintiffs on this application.