Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
Ontario Court Finds Internet Posting not Broadcast for Libel Purposes
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently considered the interaction between notice requirements in Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act and posting on the Internet in the case of Warman v. Grosvenor.
The plaintiff Richard Warman is a lawyer active in human rights work relating to hate propaganda on the Internet. He brought an action against the defendant Grosvenor, who had made dozens of web postings in which he insulted Warman and made false accusations, all of which were intended to discredit his personal and professional reputation and to expose him to hatred, contempt, and ridicule.
Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act (the “Act”) requires a person bringing an action for libel in a newspaper or broadcast to give the creator notice in writing of the alleged libel within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the person’s knowledge. However, the Court was of the view that this provision did not apply in cases involving postings on the Internet, as an Internet posting did not meet the definition of either “newspaper” or “broadcast”.
The Court also felt that the policy behind the notice requirement would not apply in this case. The reason for giving notice was to allow the originator of libelous statements a chance to retract the statements or issue an apology in order to mitigate damages. However, this rationale did not apply to the Internet, as there was no viable possibility of complete retraction, since the words would continue to remain on the Internet and be distributed around the globe.
It must be noted, however, that the Court qualified its ruling, stating that its decision resulted partly from the insufficient evidentiary record presented before it on these issues. Thus, it is possible that the notice requirement could apply to Internet postings if different, or additional facts, were presented before the Court.
For a copy of the decision, visit: