Blog Posts

BLOG POST

Pierre Lebel didn’t like that Miranda Dyck was following his daughter on Twitter. Mr. Lebel sent an email to Andre Picotte (and several others). Mr. Lebel asked Mr. Picotte to email Ms. Dyck asking that she un-follow Mr. Lebel’s daughter. 

BLOG POST

In PDM Entertainment Inc. v. Three Pines Creations Inc and Louise Penny, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide who was entitled to produce the next television adaptation of the fictional Chief Inspector Gramache.

BLOG POST

In Chandra v. CBC, 2015 ONSC 2980, Justice Graeme Mew rejected the CBC's argument that the jury notice should be struck because the issues and the expert evidence were too complex for the six randomly-drawn members of the public. However, the Court held that it might revisit that ruling as the trial progressed – the "wait and see" approach.

BLOG POST

The political blogosphere is rude, aggressive and insulting, but the ruling in Baglow v. Smith (2015 ONSC 1175) suggests that it is nonetheless a tough forum in which to make out a case of defamation.

BLOG POST

As the internet continues to develop into the primary forum for expression in our society, defamation actions increasingly involve comments made online.

BLOG POST

Score one for science, zero for journalistic integrity and a point for an interesting advance in the law of defamation.

BLOG POST

In its recent decision in Gutowski v. Clayton, 2014 ONCA 921, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided helpful advice to two sets of professionals: municipal councillors and lawyers. First, the Court confirmed for municipal councillors that they do not enjoy absolute privilege for defamatory statements they make during municipal council meetings. Second, the Court signalled to litigators that a Rule 21 motion is not the "appropriate vehicle" through which to attempt to develop an area of law that is not fully settled.

BLOG POST

The tort of unlawful interference with economic relations is surprisingly slippery, especially when pleaded alongside defamation. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada in A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 referred to the tort's scope as "unsettled" before departing from several recent appellate decisions on the topic. In Resolute Forest Products Inc. et al. v. 2471256 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 3996 the Divisional Court grappled with these developments and discussed the tort's relationship with a concurrent pleading of defamation in Ontario.