News & Blog
Featured News
Defamation and Media - On the Docket
-
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.
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.
As the internet continues to develop into the primary forum for expression in our society, defamation actions increasingly involve comments made online.
Score one for science, zero for journalistic integrity and a point for an interesting advance in the law of defamation.
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.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently heard and resolved a conflict between two competing components of a free and democratic society. As the Court put it, the dispute involved a conflict between a free and vigorous press, on the one hand, and the protection of society from serious criminal activity on the other.
In the late 2019 decision in V.M.Y. v S.H.G., Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for the first time recognized the tort of “publicity placing a person in a false light” in Canadian law. But do we need yet another invasion of privacy tort?
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...
The tort of unlawful interference with economic relations is surprisingly slippery, especially when pleaded alongside defamation.
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.
