2 total
Motion to enforce permanent injunction against internet harassment granted; court retains jurisdiction to enforce judgments.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for a years-long campaign of internet harassment and defamation.
The plaintiffs sought orders to remove new defamatory publications that came to their attention after the original summary judgment motions were argued.
The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and raising other procedural objections.
The court rejected the defendant's arguments, holding that while it is functus officio regarding the claims decided in the judgment, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders.
The motion was granted.
Ontario recognized internet harassment tort and permanently enjoined serial online defamation.
The moving parties sought summary judgment in three actions and default judgment in a fourth arising from prolonged online defamation, cyber-stalking, and harassment directed not only at primary adversaries but also at their family members and associates.
The court found the evidence overwhelming that the responding party authored or caused the impugned anonymous and pseudonymous internet publications, rejected defences under the Libel and Slander Act and justification, and held the ongoing publications remained actionable.
The court further held that existing torts, including intentional infliction of mental suffering and intrusion upon seclusion, were inadequate on the facts, and recognized a common law tort of internet harassment in Ontario for malicious or reckless online conduct so outrageous and persistent as to cause fear, anxiety, emotional upset, or dignity harm.
Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs, permanent injunctive relief issued, damages and costs claims having been withdrawn in light of the respondent's bankruptcy, and no apology order was made.
