In this blog we discuss a number of internet-based “dirty tricks” that competitors or others may deploy and which may have serious adverse consequences for you or your business. I also briefly mention the types of remedies which may be available to those victimized in this way. Confusingly Similar Domain Names In today’s modern web-based commercial world, it is more important than ever to ensure that potential customers and returning customers are properly connected with your website domain name, and to use domain names that are well-branded and associated with your business. It is not uncommon for competitors, cyber-squatters, or other persons to obtain control of domain names that are confusingly similar to your trademarks, business names, or your domain name. Then there is a real risk that users seeking your website are instead directed elsewhere by that confusingly similar domain name. Recovering a Domain Name In order to recover … Read More
Family Business Litigation | Start Up Company Litigation
We have experience acting for, advising and representing those in closely-held company litigation, both arising from family business disputes and start-up company disputes. Family Business Disputes Many businesses in Canada are family businesses or have evolved from family businesses. Family businesses present many unique challenges as they grow, as key members of the company or partnership leave the family business, or when personal relationships of the key members of the family business thereby change or deteriorate. One of the most common differences between a family business and other established businesses, whether or not a shareholders’ agreement, partnership agreement and other legal documentation was used in the formation of the family business, is the informality in operation of the family business, including the often ignored distinction in fact between employees, shareholders, or partners – since family members often take on multiple roles. Please see our webpage on Family and Closely Held … Read More
Service Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation
The Hague Service Convention Since 1989 Canada has been a member of Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, (the Hague Service Convention). Incoming Service of Foreign Process We have blogged before about the requirement of the Hague Service Convention that its member States designate a “Central Authority” to accept incoming requests for service. There are alternatives to the Hague Service Convention service of foreign process in Ontario. Service of Ontario Process Abroad As other jurisdictions become, or will become, members of the Hague Service Convention, the Status Table is updated. For instance, see the status of Azerbaijan (November 1, 2023), Singapore (December 1, 2023) and Paraguay (January 1, 2024) on the Status Table. Why Chose Gilbertson Davis LLP? One of the senior commercial litigation lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP, though now only practicing in Ontario, has also practiced … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Says Costs on anti-SLAPP Motions Should not Generally Exceed $50,000
In the recent decision, Park Lawn Corporation v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd., 2023 ONCA 129, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) provides welcome guidance on s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision introduced in 2015 to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (“SLAPP”). The decision under review by the ONCA is that of a judge’s dismissal of a motion brought by the appellants under s. 137.1 (“anti-SLAPP motion”). In particular, the appellants took issue with the motion judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff had proven sufficient harm caused by the defamatory statements. The appellants alleged that the motion judge failed to properly weigh the harm to the plaintiff against the public interest in protecting the appellants’ expression on matters of public interest. In dismissing the appeal, the ONCA found no reviewable error in the motion judge’s analysis, and advised that the motion judge “correctly described the legal principles … Read More
Allegedly Defamatory Review Found not to Relate to a Matter of Public Interest
In Echelon Environmental Inc. v. Glassdoor Inc., 2022 ONCA 391, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the motion judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in which the motion judge denied the appellant’s request to dismiss the respondent’s defamation action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (“Act”), known as the “anti-SLAPP” provision of the Act. The appeal mainly focused on whether an anonymous workplace review by an employee about his/her employer relates to a matter of public interest as required by s. 137.1(3) of the Act. The ONCA opined that on such motions, “expression is to be assessed as a whole”. As such, the question is whether: “some segment of the community would have a genuine interest in receiving information on the subject”. The court must ask: “Understood in its context, what is the impugned expression really about”? … Read More
Court Orders Removal of Fake Reviews Posted by Anonymous Reviewer
In Obsidian Group Inc. v. Google LLC, 2022 ONSC 848, the moving party brought a motion, prior to commencing its civil proceeding, for an interim injunction requiring the removal of certain messages about it posted on its Google review page by a pseudonymous reviewer. It also sought a Norwich Order (an order requiring an innocent third party to provide certain information) directing the respondent to divulge identifying information regarding the unknown reviewer. The court found that there were “strong grounds for suspecting that” the reviews are fake. The court also found that it “would not surprise anyone” given the content of the reviews that they are “causing continuous damage” to the business of the applicant. The reviews seem “designed to discourage people from ever booking a room at the hotel” of the applicant. Further, according to statistics provided by the applicant, the reviews were “accessed several thousand times since they … Read More
Domain Name Disputes, Counterfeit Websites, Fake Bad Reviews and Remedies
I discuss here a number of internet-based “dirty tricks” that competitors or others may deploy and which may have serious adverse consequences for you or your business. I also briefly mention the types of remedies which may be available to those victimized in this way. Confusingly Similar Domain Names In today’s modern web-based commercial world, it is more important than ever to ensure that potential customers and returning customers are properly connected with your website domain name, and to use domain names that are well-branded and associated with your business. It is not uncommon for competitors, cyber-squatters, or other persons to obtain control of domain names that are confusingly similar to your trademarks, business names, or your domain name. Then there is a real risk that users seeking your website are instead directed elsewhere by that confusingly similar domain name. Recovering a Domain Name In order to recover (transfer to … Read More
Defamation Law – What is a “Broadcast” or “Newspaper” under the Libel and Slander Act?
We write further to our blog which discussed the short deadlines under Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act (“Act”) that apply to defamatory content which is considered a “broadcast” or “newspaper”[1]. The Act states that: No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant. An action for a libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the person defamed, but, where such an action is brought within that period, the action may include a claim for … Read More
Defamation Lawyers and the Inference of Publication
In our blog Toronto Defamation Lawyers – Libel and Slander Law in Ontario, we suggest that in order to be successful on a defamation claim, one would have to prove that the allegedly defamatory publication was “published”, among other things. The court of appeal has provided some clarity on what it means to “publish” defamatory content. In Zoutman v. Graham, 2020 ONCA 767 (CanLII), the court contends on an appeal from a summary judgment motion, that a defamation claim requires proof that the “words were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff”. On the original summary judgment motion, the motions judge acknowledged that there was no evidence that the allegedly defamatory postings were viewed by anyone other than the parties and their lawyers. However, the motions judge drew an “inference of publication” from the totality of the circumstances. In drawing the inference of publication, the motions judge … Read More
B.C. Court Claims Jurisdiction over International Online Defamation Case
This blog post is further to our blog on the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 (CanLII) (“Haaretz”) wherein the SCC opined that Israel was a more convenient forum for an online defamation claim brought by the plaintiff in Ontario (even though the SCC recognized that Ontario had jurisdiction over the matter). The SCC considered a number of factors in its decision (all outlined in our blog). In the recent Supreme Court of British Columbia (“BCSC”) decision, Giustra v Twitter, Inc., 2021 BCSC 54 (CanLII) (“Giustra”), the BCSC confirmed that even where jurisdiction is found, a court can decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the principle that its court is not the most convenient forum for the hearing of the dispute (largely following the tenets laid out in Haaretz). The court in Giustra cited Haaretz in pointing out that the applicable law in … Read More
Online Defamation and Use of Pseudonyms
Online Defamation (“Cyber Libel”) Many of our defamation matters come from the internet. These cases take many forms, from defamatory articles, to social media posts, to negative reviews of a business or person. Courts have recognized that online defamation or “cyber libel” is far more perverse than other forms of defamation. This is because internet users can reach the global population within seconds by publishing defamatory remarks about an individual or a business. As such, cyber libel can be significantly more damaging to a person’s business and/or reputation than other forms of defamation. Posting via Online Pseudonyms Some individuals go so far as to create aliases to post malicious and defamatory comments about others on the internet. In Ontario, you can sue an anonymous defamer by naming them as “John Doe” and/or “Jane Doe” in your claim against them. There are methods to determine the identity of these anonymous defamers, … Read More
Court Considers When a Matter is in “Public Interest” in Anti-SLAPP Motion
In Paramount v. Johnston, 2018 ONSC 3711 (CanLII), the Ontario Court considered whether to dismiss a defamation claim based on the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) provision of the Court of Justice Act (section 137). We have previously blogged on the new anti-SLAPP provision: see our earlier post “Court Awards Damages to Defendant in Defamation Case”. In Paramount v. Johnston, the plaintiff company operates a number of middle-eastern restaurants. The plaintiff company was owned by the individual plaintiffs. The plaintiff company was hosting a fundraiser organised for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. A protest had been organised outside the restaurant to coincide with the fundraiser. The defendants alleged that they attended at the restaurant for the protest. The defendants allegedly defamed the plaintiffs in a total of eight videos taken on the day of the protest. One of the defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claim against him based … Read More
Supreme Court Considers Jurisdiction and the Appropriate Forum in International Internet Defamation Claim (Haaretz.com v. Goldhar)
In Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 (CanLII), the Supreme Court considered whether a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff in Ontario should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for a more convenient forum. The the plaintiff is a prominent Canadian businessman who owns a large real-estate investment company in Ontario. He also owns a popular professional soccer teams in Israel. He is well known in Israel, maintains a residence there, and travels there every few months. The corporate defendants publish a daily newspaper in Israel in both English and Hebrew, which is distributed in print and online. The newspaper has a distribution of about 70,000 print copies in Israel. The individual defendants are the newspaper’s former sports editor and the author of the allegedly libellous article. The defendants published an article about the plaintiff’s ownership and management of the soccer teams in Israel. The article also referenced … Read More
Court of Appeal Considers Defamation Claim against Better Business Bureau
In Walsh Energy Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Ottawa-Hull Incorporated, 2018 ONCA 383, the Court of Appeal considered a defamation claim against the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”). The plaintiff company had failed to respond to a customer complaint using the BBB protocol, and did not resolve the complaint independently. The BBB changed changed the plaintiff’s rating on its website from “satisfactory” to “unsatisfactory”. About a year later, the BBB adopted a new ratings system, and assigned the plaintiff a “grade” of D-. The plaintiff brought a claim against the BBB in defamation, alleging that the D- grade caused it substantial damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered (1) whether the D- grade was defamatory, and (2) whether the publication was protected by the defence of fair comment. In respect of (1), the Court stated that the trial judge was wrong to only consider whether the D- grade was … Read More
Ontario Court Declines To Find that Twitter Posts Require Libel Notice
In Levant v. Day, 2017 ONSC 5956, the defendant was regular participant on social media. The defendant posted numerous times on Twitter criticising a fundraising campaign by Rebel News. The plaintiff is the principal of Rebel News. The plaintiff brought an action seeking damages for defamation. The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under the section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which was implemented to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (the “anti-SLAPP” provisions). As part of an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court considered whether there were grounds to believe the defendant had a valid defence. The defendant argued, among other things, that the plaintiff had failed to deliver a libel notice. Section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act requires that a plaintiff has give notice to the defendant in writing within six weeks after the alleged libel comes to the plaintiff’s knowledge, specifying the … Read More
Andrew Ottaway provides commentary to Global News about online defamation
Andrew Ottaway was asked to comment about online defamation and the potential risks of posting material online. See the video here. The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis have experience with libel and slander claims, including online defamation. Please contact us for an initial consultation.
Court Awards Damages to Defendant in Defamation Case
In United Soils Management Inc. v. Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 4450, the Plaintiff operated a gravel pit in the municipality of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The municipal council voted to allow the Plaintiff to deposit fill onto certain sites. The Defendant was a member of the community, who was concerned about contamination from the deposits. The Defendant posted on the internet regarding her concerns. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant cease posting and apologize. In response, the Defendant posted a retraction and apology. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff commenced a claim against the Defendant claiming damages for defamation. The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, a provision resulting from the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) legislation. Section 137.1(3) requires the Court to dismiss claims where the Defendant proves that the proceeding arises from “expression” related to “a matter of public interest”, subject … Read More
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2