Volume II

Issue : 3: February 5, 2004

• U.S. National Cable Association Proposes Limited VoIP Regulation
• The VoIP Regulatory Debate Intensifies in Canada - TRAI Amends its Quality of Service Regulations for VoIP Long Distance Service in India
• Minnesota Judge Refuses to Reserve VoIP Decision - Panama Introduces Tax on VoIP
• Lawsuit Launched Against Credit Card Companies over Piracy of Internet Pornography
• U.S. Telemarketers Required to Identify Themselves to Consumers by Caller ID
• Federal, British Columbia and Alberta Privacy Commissioners Agree to Cooperate
• FTC Releases Report on 2003 Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaints
• B.C. Court Rules Forward Looking Infra-Red Technology Does Not Constitute a Search
• RIAA Targets Individuals on Anonymous Basis - Australia Music Industry Sues ISP
• France Gets Ready to Take Action against Internet Piracy
• Canadian Company to Offer High-speed Internet Access Via Hydro Lines
• U.S. Court of Appeals Finds Formation of On-line Contract Does Not Require "I Agree"
• Ontario Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Washington Post Based on Online Publication

Home > Volume II > Issue 3: February 5, 2004 > Ontario Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Washington Post Based on Online Publication

Ontario Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Washington Post Based on Online Publication

In Bangura v. Washington Post, the plaintiff, Cheickh Banguora, sued the Washington Post for libel with respect to a series of articles in the Washington Post that accused him of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism during the time that he headed a UN agency in Africa. Two separate UN inquiries found these allegations to be baseless.

The defendants brought a motion to have the action stayed on the basis that the Ontario Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over them. They argued that there is no real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario or between the defendants and Ontario.

The Court dismissed the motion and held that due to the fact the allegedly defamatory statements were published online and therefore accessible in Ontario, the Court had jurisdiction over the defendant. In coming to this decision, the Ontario Court cited Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick, which is an Australian decision where the court asserted jurisdiction over an American defendant, Dow Jones, based on the fact that the allegedly defamatory statements were published on the Internet. In particular, in the Ontario decision, the Court noted the following:

The publication took place in Washington, but the plaintiff's reputation was affected in Ontario. The applicable law is that of the lex loci delicti in tort cases; but, because this case involves defamation, it is difficult to determine where the tort occurred. If based on publication, then the District of Columbia is the choice of law; if based on damages and where reputation was affected, then Ontario is the choice of law. It is safe to say that Ontario and the District of Columbia are both appropriate fora.

For a copy of Bangoura, visit:
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2004/2004onsc10181.html
For a copy of Gutnick, visit:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html