The Lawyers Weekly - June 10, 2011

Defamation
Continued From Page 13

fere with city council’s decision to authorize the reimbursement pursuant to s. 222( 2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (a comparable provision to s. 283( 2) of the Municipal Act, 2001).

Defamatory comments are frequently posted on the Internet to message boards, websites and weblogs and are sent via email by Internet users using pseudonyms, opening fake accounts or making use of Internet cafés. Aided by the cloak of anonymity and the potential for widespread distribution, the Internet can be used without the fear of repercussions. What can municipalities and politicians do about online defamation, particularly in the case of anonymous defamatory statements?

campaign in Meaford, Ont., one
or more anonymous persons
posted defamatory statements
about the mayor, other mem-
bers of council and municipal
staff on a political blog. The
comments were alleged to be
personal, malicious and libel-
lous. The municipality success-
fully applied to the courts seek-
ing that Google Inc., which was
host to the political blog, pro-
vide the IP addresses/numbers
of the computers from which
the blogs originated, and that
Bell Canada, as the Internet
service provider, disclose the
identities and contact informa-
tion of persons responsible for
the computers.

John Mascarin is a partner
with Aird & Berlis LLP in
Toronto. He is a certified spe-
cialist in Municipal Law, Local
Government and Land Use
Planning & Development, and
an adjunct professor at Osgoode
Hall Law School.
Practice Management
LexisNexis®
“
A person’s right to
privacy will not be
protected in the face
of obscene, hateful
or defamatory
communications.

First, if the communication defames the politician in a way that arises purely from his or her conduct as a member of council and can be seen as attacking the municipality as a whole, the municipal council can pay for the costs of a defamation claim to a member as a reimbursement of expenses incurred as a member of council. Second, the law, while protecting an individual’s right to privacy, will only do so if a person has acted within the law. A person’s right to privacy will not be protected in the face of obscene, hateful or defamatory communications.

Any person who believes he or she has been defamed by an anonymous online communicator can seek what is called a Norwich order. In Warman v. Wilkins-Fournier, [2010] O.J. No. 1846, the plaintiff was granted an order requiring the administrators and moderators of a political and social Internet message board to disclose information that could identify anonymous individuals who had posted allegedly defamatory comments online.

Accounting software that

SPEAKS LEGALESE.

PCLaw billing and accounting software combines what you need to track your time and money all in one system — from time and billing to trust accounting, cheque writing, financial statements, client identification and verification, automatic backup, offline file management, advanced reporting tools and more. Best of all, it’s easy to use and ready to go to work instantly.