Bahlieda v. Santa, (2003), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 382; 68 O.R. (3d) 115; 20 C.C.L.T. (3d) 297; 28 C.P.R. (4th) Ont. C.A. per McMurtry, C.J.O., Goudge J.A. and Gillese J.A.

Bahlieda v. Santa, 2003 CanLII 2883 (ON C.A.)

On October 22, 2003, Fasken Martineau won an appeal from one of the most significant Internet libel decisions in Canada regarding the application of the Libel and Slander Act to Internet communications. Reported in the October 23, 2003 edition of the Globe & Mail, the November 3, 2003 edition of The Law Times and the April 2004 edition of Lexpert's "Big Suits".

In Bahlieda v. Santa, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that an internet website was a "broadcast" within the meaning of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act. This meant that any plaintiff wishing to sue for libel on a website could not proceed unless advance notice of the action had been given to the defendant within six weeks of the discovery of the libel, and an action commenced within three months of that time. These are the strictest notice and limitation periods for libel actions in Canada.

The Superior Court also held that even where defamatory information appears on a website for an extended period of time, the notice and limitation periods only run once, at the time of the plaintiff's first discovery of the defamatory material.

The Superior Court applied these rulings to summarily dismiss the plaintiff's libel action on the basis of the defendant's website communications.

To view our bulletin discussing this decision (as a PDF file), click here. [link to October 2003 Litigation Bulletin]