Surviving the Mean Tweets

of Montreal:
Defamation in the Internet
Age

Me Allen Mendelsohn
December 7, 2016

droit dinternet???

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

That f**king b*tch called me a

f**king b*tch on Twitter. I
want to sue that f**king
b*tch

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

Defamation 101
The act of harming the reputation of
another by making a false statement to a
third personA false written or oral
statement that damages anothers reputation
-Blacks Law Dictionary

Libel vs. Slander

defamatory words in a newspaper or in a broadcast
shall be deemed to be published and to constitute
libel (s. 2, Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12.)
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Preliminary Matter:
the anonymous? poster
Internet Protocol (IP) Address:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Where xxx = #(0,255)

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

The no-longer anonymous

poster:
Norwich Order
Norwich Pharmacal Company & Ors v. Commissioners of
Customs and Excise, [1974] AC 133 (HL)

Plaintiff seeks information from an

innocent 3rd party
1.Plaintiff must show a bona fide claim
2.3rd party somehow involved in the acts complained of
(even if not bearing any fault)
3.3rd party is only practical source of information
4.3rd party can be indemnified for costs
5.Whether the interests of justice favour ordering
disclosure
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Norwich Orders - Canada

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy 2002 ABCA
101

1654776 Ontario Ltd v. Stewart (2013), 114 OR

(3d) 745 (Ont. CA)

Fers et mtaux amricains, s.e.c. c. Picard

2013 QCCA 2255
La Cour constate quen effet, lordonnance Norwich peut
tre consentie dans des circonstances plus tendues que
celles envisages par la juge de premire instance
Adopted same common law criteria, citing Alberta case
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Norwich Orders Internet

Voltage Pictures LLC v. John Doe and Jane
Doe 2014 FC 161 (TD)
York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises,
[2009] O.J. No. 3698

Warman v. Wilkins Fournier, 2011 ONSC 3023

Olsen v. Facebook Inc., 2016 NSSC 155
Morris v. Johnson, 2011 ONSC 3996

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

Skipping a Norwich Order?

Burke v. John Does #1 to #18, a.k.a. Nofixedaddress, Cambarkerfan,
Lavy16, Mbskidmore, Tulowd, Loob, Naggah, Mowerman,
Aaronp18, Steve, Kaboomin8, Thezbrad, Slobberface,
Poonerman, Isolatedcircuit, Kanada Kev, Ncognito and Sir Psycho
Sexy
2013 BCSC 964

In this case, if Norwich Orders were granted and complied

with, they would only yield the e-mail addresses provided by
the Message Board Defendants when they opened their
accounts
I order that Mr. Burke may serve the notice of civil claim on
the Message Board Defendants by sending them a private
message to the internet message board accounts

Also: Manson v. John Doe, 2013 ONSC 628

Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Preliminary matter:
Jurisdiction
Real and Substantial Connection test
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of
Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2
S.C.R. 427

this Court has recognized, as a sufficient

connection for taking jurisdiction,
situations where Canada is the country of
reception
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Preliminary matter:
Jurisdiction
Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19
Impugned statements were read,
downloaded and republished in Ontario by
three newspapers
Goldhar v. Haaretz.com, 2016 ONCA 515
Forum non conveniens argument. But
here Israel was not clearly more
convenient.
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Preliminary matter:
Jurisdiction - Quebec
eBay Canada c. Mofo Moko.

2013 QCCA

1912

Larticle 3149 C.c.Q. donne

comptence aux tribunaux du Qubec
pour dcider dune action fonde sur
un contrat de consommation
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Internet Defamation
Just because it happens on
the internet, it doesnt mean
the law doesnt apply
- Allen Mendelsohn, every media
interview hes ever done
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Internet defamation:
Common
Law
Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61
1.the impugned words are defamatory, in the sense that they
would tend to lower the plaintiffs reputation in the eyes of a
reasonable person;
2.the words in fact refer to the plaintiff
3.the words were published, i.e., that they were
communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
Defenses - justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible
communication, privilege, innocent dissemination
No malice - Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto,
SCR 1130

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

[1995] 2

Internet defamation: Civil

Law
1457 C.C.Q. F + C + I
Pour que la diffamation donne ouverture une action en dommagesintrts, son auteur doit avoir commis une faute. (...) deux genres
de conduite. La premire est celle o le dfendeur, sciemment, de
mauvaise foi, avec intention de nuire, sattaque la rputation de la
victime et cherche la ridiculiser, lhumilier, lexposer la haine
ou au mpris du public ou dun groupe. La seconde rsulte dun
comportement dont la volont de nuire est absente, mais o le
dfendeur a, malgr tout, port atteinte la rputation de la victime
par sa tmrit, sa ngligence, son impertinence ou son incurie
(Baudouin et Deslauriers, La responsabilit civile 7 eed.)
Note also: Quebec Charter article 4 right to reputation
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Internet defamation: Civil

Law
Prud'homme v. Prud'homme,

2002 SCC 85

Quebec civil law does not provide for a specific form

of action for interference with reputation. The basis for
an action in defamation in Quebec is found in art. 1457
C.C.Q., which lays down the general rules that apply to
questions of civil liability. Thus, in an action in
defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance
of probabilities, the existence of injury, of a wrongful
act, and of a causal connection, as in the case of any
other action in civil, delictual or quasidelictual
liability.
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Internet defamation:
Civil vs. Common
Prud'homme v. Prud'homme
Accordingly, in Quebec civil law () conveying true
information may sometimes be a wrongful act. This is
an important difference between the civil law and the
common law, in which the falsity of the things said is
an element of the tort of defamation.
See also Gilles E. Nron Communication Marketing
Inc. v. Chambre des notaires du Qubec, 2004 SCC 53
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Internet defamation:
The tension
Prud'homme v. Prud'homme
it is important to note that an action in
defamation involves two fundamental
values: freedom of expression and the right
to reputation.

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

Third party liability

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

3rd Party liability

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
of 1996
47 U.S.C. 230. Section 230(c)(1)
No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.
Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

3rd Party liability: links

Crookes v. Newton,

2011 SCC 47

a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as

publication of the content to which it refers
(Abella J.)
(concurring, McLachlin and Fish JJ.) Publication
of a defamatory statement via a hyperlink
should be found if the text indicates adoption
or endorsement of the content of the
hyperlinked text.
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

3rd Party liability: links+

Duffy v Google Inc. [2015] SASC 170

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

3rd Party liability: Quebec

Cano inc. c. Corriveau,

2012 QCCA 109

Dans les circonstances, la juge de

premire instance tait justifie de conclure
que l'appelante connaissait les
consquences probables de son inaction
cet gard.

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

Other 3rd Party liability

cases:
Removal
Message board: Baglow v. Smith,
ONSC 1175

National Post comment section:

Weaver v. Corcoran, 2015 BCSC 165

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

2015

Criminal remedies?

Surviving the mean Tweets of

Montreal

Defamatory Libel
Criminal Code
298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published,
without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely
to injure the reputation of any person by exposing
him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is
designed to insult the person of or concerning
whom it is published.
300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel
that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years.
301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Criminal Harassment
s. 264 Criminal Code
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and
knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as
to whether the other person is harassed, engage in
conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that
other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear
for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of ()
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or
indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Criminal Harassment?
Elliott v. R, 2016 ONCJ 35
The element that the fear be
reasonable in all of the circumstances
has not been established
I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that Mr. Elliotts repeated
communications caused Ms. Reilly to
fear for her safety
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Summary practical
procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.

Mise en demeure, even to anonymous

Police?
Norwich Order?
Special mode of service? (art. 133
CCP)
5. Go forward and sue!
3rd parties? mise-en-cause at least
Corporate plaintiffs
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal

Thanks!
Questions?
allen@allenmendelsohn.com
allenmendelsohn.com
scribd.com/allen_mendelsohn
Surviving the mean Tweets of
Montreal