RSS FeedConrad Black and Libel Tourism
David Canton has a column in this week’s London Free Press, where he discusses the Conrad Black case:
The case deals with Internet defamation and how to determine where to sue for it. As with traditional defamation, a party alleging Internet defamation must demonstrate they suffered damages in Ontario and also that they have a significant connection to Ontario. Where Internet defamation differs from traditional defamation is that the alleged victim must prove the statements in question targeted Ontario.
In Black v Breedan, Black brought an action for libel against directors, advisers and a vice-president of Hollinger International for statements posted on the Hollinger website. Black argued his reputation was damaged in Ontario as a result of these defamatory statements that had been reproduced in a number of prominent Canadian newspapers, such as the Globe and Mail and the National Post.
…
Black v Breedan is noteworthy because of the online aspect of the alleged defamation. Because anything posted on the Internet can be seen anywhere in the world, it has led to “libel tourism” – where someone who thinks they have been defamed will try to sue in whatever jurisdiction they might be most successful in, and get the highest damage award.
Black v Breedan tells us that – at least in Ontario – libel tourists are not welcome.
The case is interesting to me because it’s one of the first looking at the reformulated real and substantial connection test in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Limited for libel cases over the Internet.
The motion judge found most of the Muscutt factors favoured Black. On appeal, the Defendants submitted that the judge erred in looking at the connection of Black to Ontario, instead of the connections of the claim to the province.
The alternative positions of the two parties are best set out in the following paragraphs:
[35] The defendants submit that treating the lex loci delicti as the place in which allegedly defamatory statements were accessed is inappropriate in the context of Internet libel. An approach that looks to where the statements were accessed, they argue, is contrary to the principles of order and fairness, leads to libel tourism and the prospect of unlimited liability and has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
[36] The defendants advocate a different approach to a claim for libel originating on the Internet. They suggest that the focus of the analysis of where the tort of Internet libel is committed should be on whether the defendant targeted the statements to the forum rather than where they were downloaded and read.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the presumption of a real and substantial connection under Rule 17.02(g), even though the Van Breda test was not applied, and held that the Defendants did target their statements to Ontario based on press release contact info for local media. Consequently, there was a real and substantial connection between both Black and the Defendants, even if they were in a different jurisdiction.
In assessing fairness, the court noted that even though there might be difficulties with enforcement of a judgment in the U.S., a favourable ruling would have some value in vindication for Black. But the court also tied this fairness element to the libel tourism issue raised by Canton,
[86] I agree with the motion judge that it is not appropriate to label it forum shopping or libel tourism if the party has a real and substantial connection with the forum: see Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 1993 CanLII 124 (S.C.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, at p. 920. Further, even if the judgment is not enforceable in the United States, it is enforceable in Ontario, and there is also value in the vindication of a defamation judgment regardless of the ability to collect damages.
Although Ontario courts have resisted libel tourism in the past, Black v. Breedan also reaffirms the proposition that where a case meets the Van Breda factors this is not in fact a case of forum shopping.
Should e-Bay be Responsible for Trademark Policing?
David Canton’s editorial in The London Free Press outlines cases in the U.S. and Europe that have come to very different conclusions.
The controversy centers around who is responsible for policing a trademark. The U.S. says the company is, European cases indicate that e-Bay might be responsible.
Canton explains,
Therefore, in the U.S., EBay cannot be held “pre-emptively” responsible for trade-mark infringement just because some of its sellers are advertising and selling fake goods. Prevalent public policy in the U.S., now recognized by the courts, instead puts the responsibility onto the trade-mark owner, most often the giant manufacturers.
He also points out potential implications for the Google/Viacom suit.
LSAT Thumbprinting a Privacy Violation
I always felt like I was a criminal when LSAC, the organization that offers the LSAT exam, required mandatory thumbprints on entry.
Weren’t we the ones defending the criminals (or prosecuting them)? Why are we being treated like them?
This commenter says,
When I was a psychology student I used to administer the LSAT. One thing I always found amusing is that you have to leave your thumbprint to take the test. What does that mean? Other professional or graduate tests do not require this.
Then there is the fact that it’s an American company, meaning the American government would have access to my prints if they so chose.
Should Canadian law students be forced to provide prints to a foreign country as a requirement to entry into a Canadian law school?
And I’m not the only one with these concerns.
Canadians Aren’t so Patriotic about the U.S.
In 2006, Daniel Gervais, acting dean of the common-law section at the University of Ottawa expressed to the CBC his apprehension over the U.S. Patriot Act,
The act gives the power to agencies such as the FBI to get access to information that is sent to the U.S.
Michael Geist, also of UofO, elaborates further,
Test takers in B.C. and Alberta have raised objections to the mandatory thumb-printing, expressing concern sensitive personal information could find its way into the hands of U.S. law enforcement. Empowered by provisions in the U.S. Patriot Act, authorities could compel the LSAC to surrender the data.
Patriot Act fears stem from the secretive nature of the law since authorities can compel disclosures with minimal oversight and without opportunity for the affected person to challenge the disclosure.
Critics also point to the statute’s potential misuse. Those fears were exacerbated last week with reports U.S. counter-terrorism databases contain an astonishing 325,000 names.
There has been swift reaction to the thumb-printing story, with the federal, B.C., and Alberta privacy commissioners joining forces in a combined privacy investigation. The Canadian Council of Law Deans, which represents law schools across the country, has expressed concern over the practice, acknowledging that the data could be subject to a Patriot Act request. The Council raised questions about whether the practice might violate federal and provincial privacy statutes.
Phillipa Lawson, Executive Director – Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic at UofO added,
In the LSAT case, the stated purpose of collecting thumbprints (to deter fraud) is clearly reasonable. But is the collection of thumbprints necessary to achieve this purpose? Do other, less intrusive but equally effective methods of deterring fraud exist? And is the fraud-deterrent value of thumbprinting proportional to its privacy invasiveness? The privacy commissioners now investigating this matter will have to answer these questions.
And Mark Lewis weighed in, quipped,
Personally, I think it is time for a cage match pitting the Patriot Act vs. PIPEDA.
Recent developments indicate that round 1 may have just begun.
Non-Profit Status of LSUC Will not Provide Immunity
David Canton of eLegal wrote in the London Free Press recently that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has found the thumbprinting to be a violation of privacy.
The recommendation came following a complaint by University of Victoria philosophy Professor Eike-Henner Kluge.
The Commissioner used a 4-part test:
- Is the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need?
- Is it likely to be effective in meeting that need?
- Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained?
- Is there a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end?
Their conclusion is that thumbprinting were never intended for their expressed purpose, let alone meeting their purpose.
Canton said,
LSAC took the position that since it was a Delaware corporation headquartered in the United States, the privacy commissioner had no jurisdiction over its activities.
The privacy commissioner found, however, that there were sufficient Canadian connections to make LSAC subject to the provisions of PIPEDA, at least to the extent it operates in Canada.
The Commissioner also stated,
LSAC’s status as a non-profit, non-stock, membership-based organization is not determinative. The Act applies to organizations, defined in section 2 as including “an association, a partnership, a person and a trade union.” There is no exemption for non-profit or member-oriented organizations. To the contrary, the definition of “commercial activity,” namely, “any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists,” makes clear Parliament’s intention that the Act apply to commercial transactions that non-profit, membership-based organizations might engage in.
Ding, Ding, Ding
So it seems law students, who are in training to defend the rights of others, might finally realize these privacy rights that many have been complaining about for years.
Let the fight begin.
