In this recent interview, Brian Radnoff describes the effect of a recent defamation decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd.) on how limitation periods in the Libel and Slander Act function, how those provisions apply to Internet libel and the state of the "single publication rule" in the law of Ontario.
The plaintiffs who sued in this case were unhappy about a print version of a June 2008 Toronto Life article, but did not take legal action. However, when the internet version surfaced in late August 2008, they gave notice under the Libel and Slander Act and later brought an action claiming damages for defamation and negligence. In 2011, Toronto Life brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action because according to the court, the claim was "barred by the limitation period in the act". The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for libel in the print version of the article. The motion judge granted the cross-motion but dismissed the claim for libel in the print version of the article. He also dismissed the magazine's motion for summary judgment.
In Brian's view, by upholding the motion judge's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim for libel in the print version and allowing their action for libel in the internet version to proceed to trial "the court confirmed that the one year period starts one year prior to the action commencing, and that the claims for libel all must be brought within the three month limitation period for the libel on which the plaintiff gave notice and sued. The plaintiff cannot bring an action on one publication and then, years later, seek to amend the claim to include libels that occurred within year prior to the commencement of the action, which is what the plaintiffs were trying to do in this case. The court's interpretation is entirely consistent with the wording of the act and is fair to defendants".
Brian also explained that the Court of Appeal rejected the application of the U.S. "single publication rule" which in many U.S. jurisdictions, restricts the plaintiff to suing on the first publication of a libel and not subsequent editions, "The court rejected adoption of this rule because it is inconsistent with the act's provisions and previous jurisprudence which confirms every republication is a new libel. Moreover, the court did not believe such a rule should apply across different mediums of communication. The rejection of this rule is sensible as it is fundamentally inconsistent with defamation law in Ontario," he adds.
lerners.ca/articles:commerciallitigation
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.