Volume IX

Issue : 4: October 21, 2010

• Internet Service Providers Not Subject to Broadcasting Act
• AOL Domain Name Dispute
• Anti-Spam Legislation Introduced for Second Reading at House of Commons
• U.S. FCC Investigates Wireless Carriers Amid Complaints By Users
• Internet Defamation: Aldelo Systems Inc. v. Sinclair
• New Draft of Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Released
• Apple Issued Parental Control Patent
• Facebook Granted Patent for Locating Online Members
• Motorola Sues Apple for Patent Infringement

Home > Volume IX > Issue 4: October 21, 2010 > Internet Defamation: Aldelo Systems Inc. v. Sinclair

Internet Defamation: Aldelo Systems Inc. v. Sinclair

In Aldelo Systems Inc. v. Sinclair, the plaintiff brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking an injunction from the court to prevent the defendant from continuing to take actions which was alleged to amount to defamation, and from contacting the employees of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had created a program called “Aldelo for Restaurants Pro”, designed for use by restaurants.  The defendant was a purchaser of the program.  The parties were subsequently involved in a dispute, and as a result, the defendant created a domain with the URL “aldeloripoff.com”, to which he posted material which was later removed .  It was also alleged that the defendant began making defamatory posts about the plaintiff on the website ripoffreport.com, as well as creating a new website called “Aldelo-sucks.com.”  In addition to the creation of the websites, the defendant also sent emails to the plaintiff’s employees.

The motions judge granted the order enjoining the defendant from contacting the plaintiff’s employees since it found that the plaintiff was sending threatening emails to the plaintiff’s employees.  However, the motion judge refused to grant the order with regard to the defamatory comments on the three websites.

In so doing, the motions judge held that the defendant did not control Aldelo-sucks.com, nor can it be shown that he was responsible for the postings on ripoffreport.com.  Lastly, while it can be demonstrated that the defendant did control aldeloripoff.com, there had been no material posted on the site.

Moreover, the motions judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s website was defamatory and likely to cause harm to the plaintiff’s reputation on the basis that even if that were true, it would not be irreparable harm which could not be compensated for by damages.

For a copy of the decision, visit:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc5229/2010onsc5229.html