Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Association

Closed Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    August 3, 2005
  • Outcome
    Remanded for Decision in Accordance with Ruling
  • Case Number
    2005 BCCA 398
  • Region & Country
    Canada, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Publisher, Civil Defamation, Internet

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that an online forum can be held liable for the tort of defamation if it fails or refuses to remove defamatory statements posted on the forum. The respondent ran an online forum on which an arguably defamatory remark concerning the appellant was posted. After two years, a defamation claim was filed, which was initially dismissed but later sent back to the trial court in order to determine if the post was considered a “republication” of statements when it was not removed after two years. The court reasoned that such statements can be considered “republished” by the forum if the forum fails or refuses to remove them, thus resetting the statute of limitations for tort claims concerning the original defamatory statement posted.


Facts

The respondent ran an online forum on which an arguably defamatory remark concerning the appellant was posted. The appellant noticed the remark in 2000 and urged the respondent to remove the remark. Two years later, after the statute of limitations had expired, the appellant noticed that the remark was still posted in the forum, then filed a defamation claim.

The trial court barred the claim on the ground that the original remark constituted a “single publication” and the remark was not “republished” by the respondent’s failing or refusing to remove the remark. The court dismissed the claim and held for the defendant-respondent. The appellant then appealed.

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court, finding that a single remark could be considered “republished” if a host forum neglected or refused to remove defamatory material. Accordingly, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the defendant-respondent’s actions could be considered a “republication” of the statements, and if so, to proceed to the issue of defamation.

The case is significant because the appellate court departed from Canada’s “single publication rule” which bars causes of action for republications of a single defamatory statement, and adopted an approach more similar to the defamation rules of the United States, which allow a separate cause of action for each subsequent publication.


Decision Overview

The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that, “[i]f defamatory comments are available in cyberspace to harm the reputation of an individual, it seems appropriate that the individual ought to have a remedy.” [1]

The Court reasoned that “the offending comment remained available on the internet because the defendant respondent did not take effective steps to have the offensive material removed in a timely way. Although, for the reasons noted by the trial judge, legislatures may have to come to grips with publication issues thrown up by the new development of widespread internet publication, to date the issue has not been legislatively addressed.” [2]

Thus, the Court found that “it would be appropriate…to adopt the American rule over the rule that seems to be generally accepted throughout the Commonwealth; namely, that each publication of a libel gives a fresh cause of action.” [3]

 

[1] Para. 20 of the decision, http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca398/2005bcca398.html.

[2] Id.  

[3] Id.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

The appellate court’s holding here protects individuals from potentially defamatory statements posted about them online. However, the holding nevertheless contracts expression by expanding the instances in which an online forum might be exposed to tort claims for statements posted by visitors to its site. This is likely to incentivize sites to disable unmonitored commenting, or to be “read only” sites, thus placing a chilling effect on the free, unmonitored exchange of ideas on online forums.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Can., McNichol v. Grandy, [1931] S.C.R. 696
  • Can., Lambert v. Thomson, [1937] O.R. 341
  • Can., Gilles E. Néron Communication Marketing Inc. v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 95
  • Can., Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
  • Can., Prud’homme v. Prud’homme, 2002 SCC 85, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663
  • Can., Vizetelly v. Mudie’s Select Library, Ltd., [1900] 2 Q.B. 170
  • Can., Ont., Basse v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., 1983 CanLII 1989 (ON SC 1983)

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1952)
  • U.S., Klein v. Biben, 69 N.E.2d 682 (N.Y. 1946)
  • U.K., Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2002] Q.B. 783
  • Austl., Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56
  • U.K., Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, [1849] 14 Q.B. 185
  • U.K., Berezovsky v. Michaels, [2001] W.L.R. 104
  • U.S., N.Y., Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463 (2002)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Canada is a common law country. The lower courts of British Columbia will be bound by the appellate court’s decision in this case, and this case will have persuasive authority on the appellate and trial courts of Canada’s other provinces.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback