BC Court Rejects the "Single Publishing Rule" in an Internet Posting Defamation Case

The BC Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called "single publishing rule" often used in the US has no application in Canada. Under the rule used in many US jurisdictions, the publication of a libel gives rise to only one cause of action, even though there may be later deliveries of the same libel, for example, by way of later sales of a book containing the same libellous statement. In the case at hand, Carter v BC Federation of Foster Parents Association et al, a libellous comment was posted to a web site and remained on the site for over two years. The trial judge ruled that a limitation period prevented the claim from going forward on the basis that any cause of action for the libel took place only once, when the comment was first posted to the site. On appeal, the BC Court of Appeal held that this "single publishing rule" did not apply in Canada and that the claim could therefore proceed. (Whether in fact the plaintiff could establish a later publication date for the libel merely based on its continued existence on the web site would be a matter yet to be determined.) The Court of Appeal noted that both English and Australian courts had rejected the single publishing rule and while it was difficult to find an express statement on the question in Canada, there seemed to be a "clear tendency" to favour this position. Although a potential injustice could arise if a plaintiff were allowed to mount a series of lawsuits based on a single article, the Court of Appeal noted that courts have the power to use their abuse of process jurisdiction to deal with such situations. For the reasons for judgment in the Carter case, visit: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/05/03/2005BCCA0398.htm Summary by: The Editor