Content area
Full Text
(2004), 235 D.L.R. (4th) 564, 2004 CarswellOnt 340, [2004] OJ. No. 284, 48 C.P.C. (5th) 318 (S.C.J.), additional reasons at (2004), 2004 CarswellOnt 675 (S.C.J.), reversed (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 4343, [2005] OJ. No. 3849 (C.A.), additional reasons at (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 7304 (C.A.)
* Internet - Publication of allegedly defamatory article available by means of Internet - Whether publication of article in out-of-province newspaper gave rise to damages on part of Ontario resident - No significant damages sustained in Ontario where publication first occurred three years prior to plaintiff becoming resident in Ontario
* Jurisdiction - Whether Ontario court should assume jurisdiction for tort committed outside province by out-of-province defendant - Determination of whether to assume jurisdiction should be made based on analysis of eight factors
* This Ontario Court of Appeal decision is important because of its in-depth Internet jurisdiction analysis. Significantly, this is the first Canadian case to apply the "real and substantial connection" test (used by the court to determine whether it should assume jurisdiction), in an on-line context.
FACTS
Cheickh Bangoura sued the Washington Post, and three of its reporters, for two defamatory articles that were published in 1997. The articles concerned Mr. Bangoura's employment in the United Nations Drug Control Program in the Ivory Coast. The first article, published on January 5, 1997, alleged that Bangoura's colleagues had accused him of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism. The second article, published on January 10, 1997, repeated the allegations contained in the first article.
At the time the articles were originally published, over 95% of the hardcopy circulation of the Washington Post was relegated to the DC area. Only seven hardcopies of the paper were delivered in Ontario. The readership of the online publication appears to have been limited as well. The two articles could be accessed free of charge, on the Post's Web site, for a period of fourteen days following their hardcopy publication, and, after that time, through a paid archive. Mr. Bangoura's counsel was the sole person to access the articles through the archive.
It should be noted, however, that summaries of the articles, containing the gist of the allegations made against Mr. Bangoura, continued to be available free of charge. The facts of the case did...