Sentences with phrase «plaintiff in a defamation action»

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true.

Not exact matches

Additionally, where the judgment in an online defamation claim under simplified rules is successful in obtaining an order for monetary damages of $ 100,000 without obtaining an order to remove blog posts, the plaintiff may be denied costs on the action.

The Superior Court of Justice has refused to grant a plaintiff's motion for an order requiring the defendants in a defamation action to reveal the identity of anonymous blog commenters.

Notable mandates: Represent the plaintiffs in a proposed class action against provincial law enforcement agencies regarding allegedly negligent use of breathalyzer machines; acts for hundreds of pre-sale contract holders with various condominium developments who are disputing their requirement to close under consumer protection laws; defended a law firm in a four - week hearing over enforcement of a significant contingency fee agreement; acted for a number of clients in online defamation cases

In Breeden, the plaintiff commenced defamation actions in Ontario against the defendants, who were directors, advisers, and a vice president of a corporation headquartered in the United StateIn Breeden, the plaintiff commenced defamation actions in Ontario against the defendants, who were directors, advisers, and a vice president of a corporation headquartered in the United Statein Ontario against the defendants, who were directors, advisers, and a vice president of a corporation headquartered in the United Statein the United States.

While Canadian judges, like their Commonwealth siblings, are unwilling to adopt a New York Times v. Sullivan6 - type approach to defamation law (which would require public figure plaintiffs to prove actual malice in order to be successful at trial), doctrinal and technological developments point in favour of an adapted cause of action for public figure plaintiffs under Canadian law.

In a defamation action, the plaintiff is required to prove the following on a balance of probabilities:

Notable mandates: Represented physicians involved in providing care to Ashley Smith during the 2013 coroner's inquest; acted for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in a defamation action against Ontario Progressive Conservative party leader Tim Hudak and energy critic Lisa MacLeod; in Wise v. Iran, acted for a Canadian victim of a suicide bombing (executed by individuals who received material support from Iran) who sought leave to intervene in ongoing proceedings commenced by United States plaintiffs in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking orders recognizing the enforceability in Ontario of judgments they obtained from a U.S. court against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert reports.

Google filed the motion in response to the plaintiff's defamation action, claiming damage to reputation resulting from Google searches, which generated links to numerous Web sites suggesting that he had been disciplined by the California Board of Accountancy.

«Libel tourism» is the practice of filing defamation actions in London courts to take advantage of the UK laws that are highly [some would say absurdly] favorable to plaintiffs.

Has the Plaintiff met the legal test for an interlocutory injunction in the context of a defamation action?