Canada: Canadians May Need To Pursue Internet Defamation Lawsuits Abroad

Last Updated: June 20 2018
Article by Michael Schafler and Thomas Wilson

1. Summary and comment

Is a Canadian citizen, allegedly defamed in an on-line article published in his home province by a foreign newspaper, entitled to vindicate his reputation in the courts of the province where he lives and maintains his business, and where the sting of the article's comments is felt? According to the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Haaretz.com v. Goldhar1 , the answer to this question is "no".

While a majority of the Court concluded that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter, it also found, contrary to the courts below, that Israel was the clearly more appropriate forum for trial proceedings. The plaintiff's claim was thus stayed in favour of litigation in the courts of Israel.

In this comment, we review the various reasons of the Court and offer guidance for businesses and individuals faced with potential internet defamation and the choice of whether to commence – or resist – such proceeding in Canada.

The Supreme Court confirmed that it is relatively easy for Canadian courts to assert jurisdiction over disputes with international dimensions. Even where an allegedly defamatory post is authored overseas, jurisdiction will almost certainly be asserted over the foreign defendant if the article is read in Canada and relates to a person with reputational interests in Canada. In this regard, a majority of the Supreme Court refused to adopt the 'most substantial harm' test (i.e., whether the plaintiff suffered comparatively more or less harm in the foreign jurisdiction) to determine whether a court may have presumptive jurisdiction over a given dispute. The lex loci delecti (law of the place where the tort occurred) will continue to ground presumptive jurisdiction. The good news, then, is that the Court has maintained a jurisdiction simpliciter framework that remains relatively predictable to litigants.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court's decision has likely created uncertainty in a number of other respects. Exercising his discretion, the motion judge had concluded that Israel was not a clearly more appropriate forum than Ontario. That decision was (in the absence of an error in principle, failure to apprehend or take into account material evidence, or failure to reach a reasonable decision) entitled to considerable deference by appellate courts. Despite this, the majority of the Supreme Court decided to reweigh the evidence and, based on its own view of the record, impose a new decision.  It did so by reviewing the statement of claim in detail and by finding that, notwithstanding an undertaking to confine the claim to Ontario, the complaint was not in fact so confined. In addition, the Supreme Court's decision arguably clouds the issue of which party bears the burden of proving that requiring the foreign defendant to answer a claim in Canada would result in unfairness.2 Regarding letters rogatory, in particular, parties may be required to lead expert evidence on whether the foreign jurisdiction will honour such requests.  The consequences to any plaintiff in Canada contemplating a proceeding against a foreign defendant are more than trifling:

  • Canadian plaintiffs must now pay far greater attention when drafting their claim, as it may be subjected to line-by-line jurisdictional analysis;3
  • An undertaking by the plaintiff  to limit the scope of a claim to only those damages sustained in Canada may no longer be accepted by Canadian judges – further reinforcing the need for tightly drafted pleadings that are mindful of jurisdiction;4
  • Expert evidence will now almost certainly be required on the issue of whether Canadian letters rogatory will be accepted in the foreign jurisdiction;5
  • Although decisions of motion judges regarding forum non conveniens have traditionally been entitled to deference, this decision appears to invite a de novo analysis where appellate courts disagree with the weighting applied by the motion judge to forum non conveniens factors;6 and
  • In the context of jurisdiction disputes, it may be advisable to prepare detailed proposed witness lists to summarize not only the place of residence of each proposed witness but also each witnesses' expected evidence, with indication as to the relevance of the evidence to the overall dispute.7

2. Facts

In 2011 Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, published an article criticising Mitchell Goldhar, a successful Canadian businessman and owner of the most decorated football club in Israel. A print version of the article was widely disseminated in Israel and an online version, published in both Hebrew and English, attracted approximately 200 unique views from users in Canada.

Goldhar brought an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Haaretz, alleging that the article was libellous. In response, Haaretz brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on three grounds:

  • The Ontario court lacked jurisdiction (jurisdiction simpliciter) over the dispute;
  • Israel was clearly the more convenient forum to hear the action (forum non conveniens); and
  • The action was an abuse of process.

3. Procedural history8

The motion judge held that the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed in Ontario, on two conditions: (1) that Goldhar's damages would be limited to the reputational harm he suffered in Canada, and (2) that Goldhar would pay the travel and accommodation expenses of Haaretz's witnesses, the majority of which resided in Israel.  In allowing the matter to proceed in Ontario, the motion judge applied the framework previously established by the Supreme Court, in Club Reports Ltd. v. Van Breda, for determining whether a court should assume jurisdiction over a matter involving a foreign defendant:

  • Did the Ontario court have jurisdiction simpliciter over the defendant (i.e., was there a sufficient 'real and substantial connection' between the subject matter of the litigation and Canada sufficient to allow a Canadian court to assert jurisdiction over the defendant); and
  • If the Ontario court had jurisdiction simpliciter, should it nevertheless exercise its discretion to stay the action in favour of a proceeding in another clearly more appropriate forum?

The motion judge concluded that because the alleged tort occurred in Canada (through publication of the article on the internet and readership by individuals located in Ontario) jurisdiction simpliciter was established. The motion judge further concluded that the action should proceed in Ontario, as Israel was not a clearly more convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's order in a 2-1 decision. The fact that the article had been read by a small number of people in Ontario, relative to Israel, did not determine whether or not a Canadian court had jurisdiction. The dissenting judge found that Israel was a clearly more convenient forum and proposed that a 'most substantial harm' test should replace the lex loci delicti when determining choice of law in international defamation cases.

4. Supreme Court – majority decision

Six of the nine Supreme Court judges agreed that the Ontario proceeding should be stayed in favour of litigation in Israel. The judges that formed the majority arrived at this conclusion in different ways.

4a.The reasons of Justices Côté, Brown, Rowe, and Karakatsanis

The decision of Justice Côté (Brown J. and Rowe J. concurring) favoured the traditional two-step approach set out in Van Breda and the continued application of the lex loci delicti when determining whether there was a 'real and substantial connection' on which to base jurisdiction.

Côté J. held that because the alleged tort had occurred in Canada, a presumptive connecting factor to the jurisdiction had been established. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance if the plaintiff has no reputation in the jurisdiction.10 However, in this case, the presumption was not rebutted as Goldhar had a reputation in Ontario and the alleged defamatory article directly referenced his Canadian residency and businesses.11

Moving to consideration of the motion judge's forum non conveniens analysis, Côté J. affirmed that the burden was on the defendant to satisfy the motion judge that an alternative forum was clearly more appropriate by establishing that it would be fairer and more efficient to proceed in that forum.12 Given the ease with which jurisdiction simpliciter can be established in cases of internet defamation, Côté J. cautioned that a robust forum non conveniens analysis must take place and that motion judges must be "particularly attuned to concerns about fairness and efficiency" at that stage.13

Côté J. confirmed that lower court decisions regarding forum non conveniens are entitled to deference, but an appellate court may intervene where there is an unreasonable conclusion, error in principle, or misapprehension or failure to take into account material evidence.14 With this in mind, Côté J. identified six errors in the motion judge's forum non conveniens analysis15 and, in light of these errors, replaced the motion judge's analysis with her own:

  • Comparative convenience for the parties: favoured Israel (not disputed by the parties).
  • Comparative convenience and expense for the witnesses: heavily favoured Israel, particularly as almost all of Haaretz's proposed witnesses resided in Israel and the evidence "did not allow the courts below to ensure that Haaretz would be able to compel its witnesses to testify if the trial proceeded in Ontario".16 Further concern was raised with respect to Goldhar's undertaking to pay the travel expenses of Haaretz's witnesses, as this sort of undertaking might permit a wealthy plaintiff to sway the analysis in a manner "inimical to the foundational principles of fairness and efficiency undermining this doctrine."17
  • Loss of legitimate juridical advantage: favoured Ontario, but should not weigh heavily in the analysis.18
  • Fairness: favoured Israel. Goldhar had a multijurisdictional reputation and would suffer "no significant unfairness by having to bring a libel claim in Israel for comments that were written and researched in Israel and that pertain primarily to his reputation and business in that jurisdiction."19 In this regard, the motion judge had failed to ensure that both parties were treated fairly by not weighing Goldhar's interest in vindicating his reputation in Ontario against the significant unfairness that trial in Ontario would impose on Haaretz.20
  • Enforcement: slightly favoured Israel, as Haaretz had no assets in Ontario.
  • Applicable law: favoured Ontario, but should be given little weight. Significantly, Côté J. held that the analysis of applicable law, given the comparative nature of the forum non conveniens analysis, should consider the law of the alternative forum in addition to the law of the chosen forum.21 Côté J. refused to apply the proposed 'most substantial harm' test due to her reluctance to change the existing private international law framework.22  In any event, according to Côté J., the most substantial harm test would not have clearly favoured either forum as Goldhar had a substantial reputation in both Israel and Ontario.23

In the result, Côté J. held that Goldhar's action should be stayed in favour of the clearly more convenient forum: Israel.

Karakatsanis J., in separate reasons, largely adopted the reasoning of Côté J., with one exception: as part of the forum non conveniens analysis, Karakatsanis J. held that consideration of applicable law should not be expanded to include consideration of the applicable law of the alternative forum – such consideration would unduly lengthen the analysis and not aid in determining whether a domestic court would have to apply foreign law at trial.24

4b. The reasons of Justices Abella and Wagner

Justice Abella held that the 'most substantial' harm should replace the lex loci delicti as a presumptive connecting factor in the jurisdiction simpliciter analysis for internet defamation cases. This test, according to Abella J., was more realistic in the internet age and helped avoid the risk of lawsuits being brought in whatever jurisdiction an allegedly defamatory online article was opened. Wagner J. did not agree with the application of this proposed test to the jurisdiction simpliciter stage.25

In considering the forum non conveniens analysis factors, Abella J. was concerned that a single download might be sufficient to establish applicable law in internet defamation cases.26 As with jurisdiction simpliciter, her preference was to consider the place where the plaintiff suffered the greatest harm to their reputation (as opposed to law of the place of publication).27 With reference to Australia and European jurisdictions, Abella J. called for a multi-factor contextual approach to determining where the most substantial harm was suffered.28

Wagner J. agreed with Abella J.'s application of a 'most substantial harm' test to the choice of law analysis: while there will be cases in which it will be challenging to identify the place of most substantial harm, "the range of possibly applicable law for a given dispute will be much narrower than with lex loci delicti and will be determined on a more principled basis."29

Ultimately, on their respective analyses, Justices Abella and Wagner each favoured a trial in Israel, particularly given the financial strain a trial in Ontario would place on Haaretz.30

5. Supreme Court – dissenting reasons of Justices McLachlin, Moldaver, and Gascon

The dissent, written by McLachliln C.J., rejected much of the majority's analysis and held that the only forum non conveniens factors that favoured a trial in Israel were comparative convenience, expense for the parties, and convenience for the witnesses.31

The dissent disagreed with Côté J.'s characterization of errors made by the motion judge: some of these errors, according to McLachlin C.J., were simple differences in the weighing of factors and were at odds with the deferential standard of review to be afforded to the motion judge.32 In general, the dissent disagreed with the approach of the majority, which, they stated, undermined stability and increased costs and uncertainty by setting a tone for further appellate intervention in jurisdiction decisions.33

On the issue of jurisdiction simpliciter, the dissent was of the view that the situs of the tort was sufficient to establish a presumptive jurisdictional connection: even in the case of libel on the internet, "the sting of the defamation is felt in the place where it is read."34

Haaretz, according to McLachlin C.J., could not rebut the presumption of jurisdiction in this case: it was reasonably foreseeable that Goldhar, a Canadian, might seek to vindicate his reputation in Ontario. The existing standard for jurisdiction simpliciter was far from the automatic assumption of jurisdiction based on a single download, as was framed by Abella J.35

On the dissent's forum non conveniens analysis, considerable emphasis was given to the history and selection of a "clearly more appropriate forum" as being the standard for exercising judicial discretion to stay a proceeding.

The dissent would not have adopted a most substantial harm test for applicable law in defamation cases, out of concern that such a rule would be highly subjective and would result in the proliferation of costly mini-trials. 36 The dissenting reasons also expressed concern regarding the majority's analysis: that one party might be able to manipulate the witness factor by providing a list of foreign-domiciled witnesses, in order to sway the forum non conveniens analysis, without providing any further indication of their relevance or expected evidence.37

6. Conclusion

Haaretz.com v. Goldhar helpfully affirms the test for jurisdiction simpliciter in internet defamation cases. At the same time, however, it muddies the waters regarding those circumstances in which a court might exercise its discretion to stay a proceeding in Canada in favour of trial in another jurisdiction, including when an appellate court might deem it appropriate to overturn a motion judge's decision on that issue.

The Supreme Court's decision shows that the Canadian judiciary remains divided on how best to adapt existing private international law principles to the modern reality of borderless communications. While Haaretz.com v. Goldhar may not be the final word in this debate, it stands for now. In the result, litigants in matters involving foreign defendantsare left with increased uncertainty regarding the appropriate forum for their claim and would be wise to examine jurisdictional issues with increased scrutiny and vigilance.

Footnotes

1 Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28, para 151.

2 Ibid, para 63.

3 Ibid, paras 20-22, 24, 78, and 132.

4 Ibid, para 23.

5 Ibid, paras 50 and 64.

6 Ibid, para 179.

7 Ibid, paras 223-224 and 227.

8 For full commentary on the procedural history of this case, please see: (1) " Ontario Court Assumes Jurisdiction Over Israeli Publisher in Online Defamation Claim", International Law Office (also published in Internet and E-Commerce Law in Canada, v.16, no. 8, December 2015) and (2) "Court of Appeal Affirms Jurisdiction Over Israeli Publisher", International Law Office.

9 2012 SCC 17.

10 Haaretz, supra, para 44.

11 Ibid, para 45.

12 Ibid, para 46.

13 Ibid, para 48.

14 Ibid, para 49.

15 The errors identified by Côté J. were: (1) finding that letters rogatory could be used to compel Israeli witnesses to testify in Ontario; (2) giving too much weight to Goldhar's undertaking to fund travel and accommodation expenses of foreign witnesses in accordance with rates provided in the Rules; (3) unreasonably discounting Haaretz's proposed witnesses and the relevance of their evidence; (4) failing to consider Goldhar's significant reputation in Israel; (5) failing to weigh Goldhar's interest in vindicating his reputation in Ontario against the unfairness a trial in Ontario would impose on Haaretz; and (6) failing to consider the question of enforcement.

16 Haaretz, supra, para 63.

17 Ibid, para 66.

18 Ibid, para 76.

19 Ibid, para 78.

20 Ibid, para 79.

21 Ibid, para 89.

22 Ibid, para 91.

23 Ibid, para 94.

24 Ibid, para 100.

25 Ibid, para 147.

26 Ibid, para 117.

27 Ibid, para 109.

28 Ibid, para 114-116.

29 Ibid, para 145.

30 Ibid, paras 133-139.

31 Ibid, para 238.

32 Ibid, para 179.

33 Ibid, para 180.

34 Ibid, para 166.

35 Ibid, para 171.

36 Ibid, paras 196 and 199-201.

37 Ibid, para 227.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com

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. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
24 Sep 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada
    CPD/CLE Accreditation
  • Barreau du Québec: This program will allow Barreau du Québec participants to earn 1 CLE hour.
  • LSA: Training courses may be included as a CPD learning activity in your mandatory annual Continuing Professional Development Plan.
  • LSBC: This program has been registered for 1 hour of CPD credit with the Law Society of British Columbia.
  • LSO: This program is eligible for 1 substantive hour with the Law Society of Ontario.
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions