Ontario Superior Court Rules on the Inclusion of the Internet as a “Broadcast” Medium



ONTARIOSUPERIORCOURTRULESONTHEINCLUSIONOFTHEINTERNETASA
“BROADCAST”MEDIUM

AlexandraSteele*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
TheOntarioSuperiorCourtrecentlyruledthatthepostingofdefamatory
materialontheinternetconstitutesa“broadcast”ofsuchmaterialpursuant
totheprovisionsoftheOntarioLibelandSlanderAct(Bahliedav.Santa,
[2003]O.J.No.1159,April2,2003,PierceJ.).
Thefacts
ThePlaintiffwasaclerkoftheCityofThunderBayandtheDefendantwasa
CityCouncillor.ThePlaintiffinitiatedlegalproceedingsagainsttheDefendant
allegingthatdefamatorymaterialwaspostedontheDefendant’swebsite
onMay10,2001andsheonlylearnedoftheexistenceofsuchpostinginJuly
2001.Therewerealsoallegationsofdefamatorystatementsmadebythe
Defendantviafax.
TheOntarioLibelandSlanderActprovidesthatpriortoinitiatinglegal
proceedingsforlibelinabroadcast,apersonmustgivenotice,inwriting,and
notmorethansixweeksfromtheknowledgeofthebroadcast,thatheorshe
intendstocommenceproceedings.Theactionmustthereafterbetakenno
morethanthreemonthsafterthepersonfirstgainedknowledgeofthe
defamatorystatements(Sections5and6LibelandSlanderAct).Inthiscase,
althoughthePlaintiffhadknowledgeofthedefamatorystatementsasofJuly
15,2001,thenoticewasmadeinwritingonNovember14,2001andthe
StatementofClaimwasissuedonJanuary8,2002.
Theissuesatbar



















































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.*Lawyer,AlexandraSteeleisamemberofthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andwith
thepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(2003)WorldE-Commerce&
InternetReport.Publication274.09.



TheDefendantmovedforSummaryJudgement,allegingthattherewasno
genuineissuefortrialonthegroundsthatpartofthePlaintiff’sactionwas
barredbystatuteforfailuretogivenoticewithinthesixweektimeframeset
outintheLibelandSlanderAct.PierceJ.wasseizedofdeterminingwhether
ornotallorpartofthecaseshouldproceedtotrial.
TheSuperiorCourtruling
TheCourtfirstreviewedthequestionofwhetherornotaninternetposting
couldbeconsideredasa“broadcast”withinthemeaningoftheOntario
LibelandSlanderAct,thatreads:
“1(1)“Broadcasting”meansthedisseminationofwriting,signs,
signalspicturesandsoundsofallkindsintendedtobereceivedby
thepubliceitherdirectlyorindirectlyorthroughthemediumofrelay
stations,bymeansof,
(a)anyformofwirelessradioelecriccommunication
utilizingHertzianwaves,includingradiotelegraphandradio
telephone,or
(b)cables,wires,fibre-opticlinkagesorlaserbeams,
and“broadcasthasacorrespondingmeaning[.]”
ThePlaintiffarguedthattheterm“broadcast”didnotincludetheinternet
andtheDefendantarguedtoitsinclusioninthedefinitionof“broadcasting”
foundintheOntarioLibelandSlanderAct.PierceJ.consideredtwoexperts’
reportsinordertodetermineiftheinternetwasabroadcastmediumas
definedintheOntarioLibelandSlanderAct.Theexpertsessentiallyagreed
onthedefinitionoftheinternetandalthoughtheexpertopinionsdifferedon
thequestionsofInternetapplications,itsinfrastructureandthesimilarities
betweeninternetandtraditionalbroadcasts,suchasradioandtelevision,the
TrialJudgecametotheconclusionthattheinternetwasinfacta
“broadcasting”medium.
Ontheissueofwhetherornotthepostingofdefamatorymaterialonthe
internetisa“broadcast”inaccordancewiththedefinitionoftheLibeland
SlanderAct,PierceJ.writes:
“51Thepurposeofbroadcastingdefinitionistosingleout
informationwhichistransmittedtomassaudiences,where
maximumharmtoreputationcanbedone.Traditionally,this
involvedradioandtelevision.In1980,whentheinternetwasinits
infancy,andnotwidelyavailable,theActwasamendedto



incorporatetechnologyapplicabletocableTV.TheLegislature
obviouslysoughttoclarifytheinclusionofcabletelevisioninthe
scopeoftheAct,recognizingthesizeofitsaudience.
52Thecourtmustrecognizeandgiveeffecttothepurposeofthe
Act,includingthemischiefitseekstoameliorate.InthisAct,that
harmiswidespreaddamagetoreputationwhenamassaudience
receivesdefamatorymaterial.Thatistherationaleforapplying
particularrulestobroadcastingthatdonotapplytootherformsof
defamatorycommunication.Itisthereasonforthenoticeperiod,
andthelimitationfoundinsections5and6.
53Theinternet,sometimesmorethantraditionalbroadcastmedia,
reachesamassaudience.Itusesthesameinfrastructurecommon
toradioandtelevision,assetoutintheAct.Iconcludetherefore,
thatplacingmaterialontheinternet,viaawebsite,whereitmaybe
accessedbyalargeaudience,constitutesbroadcastingwithinthe
meaningoftheLibelandSlanderAct.”
TheTrialJudgethereforeconcludedthatifthepostingofdefamatory
materialontheinternetwasa“broadcast”inaccordancewiththeOntario
LibelandSlanderAct,thenthePlaintiffhadtheobligationtogivenoticeto
theDefendantofherintentiontoinitiateproceedingsforslanderwithinsix
weeksofherknowledgeoftheslanderousstatementsandshealsohadthe
obligationtocommenceheractionwithinthreemonthsofsuchknowledge.
ShethePlaintiffhadfailedtoactwithinthelimitationperiods,PierceJ.
concludedthattherewasnogenuineissuefortrialasconcernedtheaction
basedontheinternet“broadcasts”.
ThePlaintiffhadalsoargued,inordertocountertheDefendant’slimitation
argument,thatsincethedefamatorymaterialcontinuedtobepostedonthe
Defendant’sinternetwebsiteuntilJune2002,herNovember14,2001notice
totheDefendantcapturedthe“broadcast”ofthepriormonth.PierceJ.
disagreed,rulingthatthemonthlypostingofthedefamatorymaterialdidnot
giverisetoanewcauseofactionbasedonrepublication.TheTrialJudge
ruledthathadthePlaintiffgivenhernoticeandcommencedheraction
withinthedelayssetoutintheLibelandSlanderAct,shethencouldhave
claimedforanydefamatorybroadcastbytheDefendantuptooneyear
priortothecommencementoftheactioninaccordancewithsection6of
theLibelandSlanderAct.
TheTrialJudgethereforegranted,inpart,theDefendant’sMotionfor
SummaryJudgementrulingthatthePlaintiff’sactionforslanderonthe
internetwasbarredbystatute.



Conclusion
Thiscasethereforeconfirmsthattheinternetconstitutesanpowerfuland
recognisedbroadcastingmedium.Inaddition,itservesasaremindertoboth
clientsandtheircounselthatswiftactionisrequiredinsituationstheremaybe
allegationsofdefamationontheinternet,orthroughanyothermediumfor
thatmatter.Eachprovincemayhaveitsownlimitationperiodsandstatutes
asconcernsdefamation,buttheterm“broadcast”willlikelycontinuetobe
definedineachprovinceasincludingtheinternet.



ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD