Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-14-00500238-0000 Date: 2025-09-11 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Amin Massoudi, Plaintiff (Respondent)

– and –

Vice Media LLC, Patrick McGuire, John Doe and Vice Media Canada Inc., Defendants (Moving Parties)

Counsel:

• Peter A. Downard, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
• Kaleigh Sonshine, Douglas Best and Piper McKerlie, for the Defendants (Moving Parties)

Heard at Toronto: August 14, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

J.K. Penman J.

A. Overview

[1] An article titled "Rob Ford's Office Hired a Hacker to Destroy the Crack Tape" was published by the defendant, Vice Media Canada Inc., on November 5, 2013. The Article detailed the alleged efforts of the plaintiff, Amin Massoudi, to hire a computer hacker to destroy a video of Mayor Rob Ford using crack cocaine.

[2] Within hours of the Article being released, Massoudi, who worked in Mayor Ford's office at the time, emailed Vice Media Canada, threatening legal action alleging that the Article was defamatory.

[3] Section 6 of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12 (the "LSA") requires that a claim be brought within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the person defamed. Massoudi commenced this action on March 14, 2014, more than three months after he sent the email threatening legal action.

[4] The limitation period in section 6 is to be strictly applied once the pre-conditions in sections 7 and 8 of the LSA are met.

[5] Section 7 of the LSA requires that the publication must have occurred in Ontario. Section 8 requires that Vice Media Canada Inc. ("Vice Canada") was to state the names of its proprietor and/or publisher as well as the address of publication at "the head of the editorials."

[6] Vice Canada now brings this motion for summary judgment, arguing that the pre-conditions in sections 7 and 8 are met, and that the action is statute barred pursuant to section 6 of the LSA.

[7] Massoudi argues there has not been compliance with either section 7 or 8 of the LSA, and that the motion should be dismissed.

[8] Both parties agree this case is suitable for summary judgment. Therefore, the specific issues in the motion before me are as follows:

• Has there been compliance with section 7 of the LSA?
• Has there been compliance with section 8 of the LSA?

[9] For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted. There is no genuine issue for trial as this involves a straightforward analysis of the threshold requirements of sections 7 and 8 of the LSA. Those sections were complied with by the defendant, and Massoudi's claim is statute barred pursuant to section 6 of the LSA.

B. Factual Background

[10] Vice Canada is a publisher of media and news content in Canada, both in print and online. At the time of publication, the Vice Canada office and headquarters were in Toronto. Toronto was where all of Vice Canada's operations were located and carried out.

[11] The registered head office for Vice Canada was in Montreal. This was done for convenience reasons, as the company's counsel was in Montreal.

[12] Patrick McGuire was a journalist residing in Toronto at the time and was employed as managing editor of Vice Canada's operations.

[13] Massoudi was employed as the Special Assistant Communications & Media Relations to Mayor Rob Ford.

[14] In 2013, McGuire's "beat," so to speak, were the political and personal scandals surrounding Mayor Ford. The Article was written by McGuire and his team in Toronto. The reporting groundwork and writing was done by McGuire in Toronto. Editorial input was provided by Vice Canada's editor-in-chief, Rocco Castoro, as well as Jonathan Smith – both of whom were located in Brooklyn.

[15] McGuire drafted the Article in Word, and once it was completed, copied it into Vice's Content Management System ("the CMS"). The CMS contained a drop-down menu indicating a "locale" for Canada and other countries. While in the CMS, McGuire was required to choose a locale, which in this case was Canada. There was no option to select a particular Canadian province.

[16] Vice Canada retained the services of an expert, KPMG, who concluded that most of the page views of the Article came from Ontario. KPMG also reviewed the edit history of the Article after it had been copied into the CMS. The history showed that McGuire was the main and initial person to create the Article and did so from his laptop in Toronto. Although he made the first edits, editing was also done by Castoro and Smith.

[17] Once the Article was finalized it was published in the Canadian "locale" at the following URL: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/rob-fords-office-hired-a-hacker-to-destroy-the-crack-tape.

[18] The locale tag, "en_ca" indicated the Article's geographic targeting based on the locale McGuire selected on the CMS.

[19] The Article was also "translated" inside the CMS into a separate workflow locale for American readers and published in the US with a separate URL that had the "en_us" tag.

[20] Prior to publishing the Article, numerous emails were sent to Massoudi, letting him know of plans to publish it and asking for comment. McGuire's emails included his Toronto phone number, and his email signature included a Toronto address.

[21] Castoro also sent Massoudi emails asking for comment. In an email from November 4, 2013, Castoro asked Massoudi to contact him or McGuire at the Toronto phone number.

[22] On November 5, 2013, the day the Article was published, Massoudi, with the benefit of legal advice, emailed Vice Canada denying the contents of the Article, claiming it was defamatory. The email was sent to both McGuire and Castoro. Massoudi also sent the email to Canadian news publications Global News and Macleans.

[23] In November of 2013, Vice Canada's online edition had a "masthead" identifying the names of the proprietor, the publisher and the address for publication. The masthead was accessible at the URL: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/about.

[24] The masthead page is titled "About Us" and was also available by clicking the "Contact" button. To access the contact information of the proprietor and/or publisher, a reader would click on the "About Us" link found on the bottom of every page of the website.

[25] The proprietor of the Article was Vice Canada. The masthead identified the publisher as Ryan Archibald, who operated out of Toronto. Archibald was also identified as the contact for inquiries.

[26] McGuire was listed on the masthead under "Online Operations." The masthead listed 20 addresses of various Vice locations including the Toronto office at 360 Dufferin St., Suite 204.

C. Legal Principles

Summary Judgment

[27] Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 provides: "The court shall grant summary judgment if the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence."

[28] Rule 20.04(2.1) sets out the court's powers on a motion for summary judgment as follows:

In determining under clause (2)(a) whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:

i) Weighing the evidence; ii) Evaluating the credibility of a deponent; iii) Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.

[29] In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 66, the Supreme Court of Canada established a roadmap for how a judge should approach a motion for summary judgment:

[T]he judge should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring trial based only on the evidence before her, without using the new fact-finding powers. There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides her with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute and is a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure, under Rule 20.04(2)(a). If there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, she should then determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the new powers under Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2). She may, at her discretion, use those powers, provided that their use is not against the interest of justice. Their use will not be against the interest of justice if they will lead to a fair and just result and will serve the goals of timeliness, affordability and proportionality in light of the litigation as a whole. [Emphasis in original.]

[30] There is no genuine issue requiring a trial when the court is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of the motion. This will be the case where the process (1) allows the court to make necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the court to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result: Hryniak, at para. 49; and Moffitt v. TD Canada Trust, 2023 ONCA 349, 483 D.L.R. (4th) 432, at para. 39.

[31] Summary judgment remains the exception, not the rule. The court should use its enhanced powers and decide a motion for summary judgment only where it leads to "a fair process and just adjudication": Ang v. Lin, 2023 ONSC 4446, at para. 15, citing Mason v. Perras Mongenais, 2018 ONCA 978, at para. 44, and Eastwood Square Kitchener Inc. v. Value Village Stores, Inc., 2017 ONSC 832, at paras. 3-6 (and cases cited therein).

[32] The parties agree that this case is suitable for summary judgment.

Statutory Framework and Statutory Interpretation

[33] Section 6 of the LSA reads as follows:

An action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the person defamed, but, where such an action is brought within that period, the action may include a claim for any other libel against the plaintiff by the defendant in the same newspaper or the same broadcasting station within a period of one year before the commencement of the action.

[34] Section 7 reads as follows:

Subsection 5(1) and section 6 apply only to newspapers printed and published in Ontario and to broadcasts from a station in Ontario.

[35] Section 8(1) reads as follows:

No defendant in an action for a libel in a newspaper is entitled to the benefit of sections 5 and 6 unless the names of the proprietor and publisher and the address of publication are stated either at the head of the editorials or on the front page of the newspaper.

[36] The LSA is a somewhat antiquated statute having been drafted in an era of traditional print media. Laskin J.A. in Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 405, 366 D.L.R. (4th) 82, noted that the LSA did not contemplate our internet age, nor its predominance as a news source. He went on to state: "[t]he application of the Act to internet publications will have to come about by legislative amendment or through judicial interpretation of statutory language drafted in a far earlier era": at para. 20.

[37] In John v. Ballingall, 2017 ONCA 579, 136 O.R. (3d) 305, the Court of Appeal recognized that principles of statutory interpretation are to be "flexible enough to achieve the intent of the legislature in the context of evolving realities": at para. 23, referring to R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, 56 O.R. (3d) 359, at para. 38.

[38] John confirms that legislation has been interpreted to apply to technologies that did not exist when the legislation was first enacted. For example, the Telegraph Act applies to telephones, and a fiber optic system is a "cable" within the meaning of the Canadian Income Tax Act, notwithstanding the fact that these technologies did not exist at the time the statutes were enacted: John, at para. 24.

Issue 1: Has there been Compliance with Section 7 of the LSA?

[39] Section 7 requires that section 6 only applies to "newspapers printed and published in Ontario." In this case, the Article was only ever released online and not 'printed' in the traditional sense. In my view, this does not change the applicability of the LSA.

[40] Massoudi does not dispute that the Vice Canada website is a newspaper for the purposes of the LSA.

[41] This is an appropriate concession and is in keeping with John, which found that newspapers are published in print, and read online, and to suggest there be a different regime for each would be "absurd": at para. 25. Similarly, in the 2002 decision, Weiss v. Sawyer, 61 O.R. (3d) 526, the Court of Appeal found that the word "paper" is broad enough to include a newspaper published on the internet: at para. 24.

[42] As affirmed again in John, a newspaper does not cease to be a newspaper because it is printed online. This recognizes that the purpose and scheme of the notice provision is to extend the benefits of the LSA to those who are sued for libel in a newspaper "irrespective of the method or technique of publication": John at para. 22.

[43] There is no dispute that the Article was published in a newspaper. The question is whether the Article was published in Ontario. I am satisfied that the Article was published in Ontario for the following reasons.

[44] First, it was authored by McGuire, a Toronto-based journalist working out of Vice Canada's editorial office in Toronto. Additionally, the source himself was Toronto-based. This contrasts with Elfarnawani v. International Olympic Committee, 2011 ONSC 6784. In that case, the fact that neither the source nor the BBC reporters were located in Ontario were "significant" factors for the Court in determining that the impugned content was not published in Ontario: Elfarnawani, at para. 44.

[45] While I appreciate that certain editing was done by other members of Vice's editorial team who were based out of the US, McGuire was the author who bore responsibility for the Article's content.

[46] Second, the Article was targeting a Toronto audience. The issues surrounding Toronto's Mayor were of obvious interest to Toronto in particular, and Ontario more broadly. Mayor Ford and the controversies surrounding his time in office were the subject of McGuire and Vice Canada's Toronto-based reporting.

[47] Third, the Article was accessed predominantly by Ontario readers. Vice Media retained KPMG who concluded that most of the page views of the Article came from Ontario. Massoudi retained his own expert who cast doubt on that finding, suggesting that some of the identical page view numbers were indicative of automated traffic or "bots." These identical page views were from locations other than Ontario. However, KPMG prepared another report after consulting Google Analytics and still concluded that the single highest number of page views came from Ontario. I accept this conclusion, and it accords with the Toronto-centric content of the Article.

[48] Fourth, the Article includes the word "Toronto" 15 times and mentions both "Ontario" and "Etobicoke" once. There are also numerous references to Toronto-based subjects and people. Again, this contrasts with Elfarnawani, where the Court inferred that the article in that case had not targeted Ontario because there was no mention of the province: at para. 36.

[49] Fifth, Massoudi alleges that he suffered damage to his reputation, ostracization, and psychological harm. These harms are inextricably connected to Ontario, where he lived and worked at the time.

[50] In Weiss, the plaintiff tried to argue that Realms magazine could not benefit from the LSA because there was no evidence the magazine had been printed in Ontario. The Court of Appeal referred to the masthead of the magazine and found that the Etobicoke address listed was a sufficient basis to conclude that the magazine was printed in Ontario: at para. 19.

[51] The above factors also align with the principles of jurisdiction as applicable to defamation cases. In Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 3, the Court confirmed that "the situs of Internet-based defamation is the place where the defamatory statements are read, accessed or downloaded by the third party": at para. 36. I am satisfied that the defamatory statements in this case were read, accessed and downloaded in Ontario.

[52] Massoudi argues that the analysis must focus on the Vice Media website as a whole and then determine if the Article was printed and published in Ontario. Considering the dictionary definition of "publish," which is "to distribute copies of a work to the public," Massoudi argues that all of Vice Canada's content was published in the US because that is where their servers were located. Massoudi further argues Vice Media is more properly characterized as an international publication rather than a publication printed and published in Ontario, because after the Article was made available in Ontario, it was uploaded to audiences across Canada and then to the US. Because of this, Massoudi argues the publication is no longer subject to the purview section 7. I am not persuaded by these submissions.

[53] In Barrick Gold Corp. v. Blanchard & Co., the Court addressed the issue of where publication occurred for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction and applying statutory requirements. The Court found that the critical issue was where the material was accessed and read, not the fact that the impugned internal content was hosted on servers in the US: at para. 41.

[54] The location of the server is but one factor in the analysis, and in my view, does not tip the balance away from the other factors I have outlined above.

[55] Additionally, section 7 of the LSA does not reference "Ontario newspapers," nor is its application limited to newspapers owned by Ontario corporate entities. The statute merely requires that the act of publishing the impugned content take place in Ontario. The courts have not confined their interpretation of the LSA to Ontario newspapers: see J.K. v. The Korea Times & Hankookilbo Ltd., 2016 ONCA 375; World Sikh Organization of Canada v. CBC/Radio Canada, 2008 CarswellOnt 7649; and Guo v. Sing Tao Daily Ltd..

[56] At the time of publishing, Vice Media was an international company and brand with more than 20 offices around the world. This does not change the fact that the Article was published by Vice Canada, accessed overwhelmingly by Ontario readers, and obviously targeted an Ontario audience.

[57] There is no question that the Article was published in Ontario and that section 7 has been complied with.

Issue 2: Has there been Compliance with Section 8 of the LSA?

[58] Section 8 of the LSA requires that the newspaper names the proprietor, publisher, and provides the address of the publication at either the "head of the editorials," or "the front page of the newspaper."

[59] The purpose of section 8 is to ensure that plaintiffs have sufficient notice of who is responsible for the publication so they may take appropriate steps in commencing a legal action. The threshold to meet section 8 is "substantial compliance". The provision does not require the rigid application of a technical requirement: Weiss at para. 21.

[60] It is settled law that if the publisher and the proprietor of a newspaper are the same, the requirements of section 8(1) are satisfied by a notice that provides the information for the publisher, without reference to the proprietor: Scown v. Herald Publishing Co., 56 S.C.R. 305, at p. 305; and Weiss at paras. 20-22.

[61] In Weiss, the name of the publisher and address of publication were set out in the masthead which was "prominently displayed" at the head of the page containing an editorial and editorial cartoon. Relying on Scown at p. 311, the Court of Appeal agreed with the finding that this constituted substantial compliance for purposes of the LSA: Weiss, at para. 21.

[62] Massoudi relies on the 1994 Divisional Court decision of Hermiston v. Robert Axford Holdings Inc., 21 O.R. (3d) 211, which dealt with a print publication. In that case, the names of the publisher and proprietor, and the address of publication, were located at the bottom of the editorial page. The Court found that the location of the information at the bottom of the editorial page did not amount to substantial compliance, and would not give reasonable effect to the Act: at pp. 213-214. Massoudi argues that in this case, the front page is the home page and because there was no information on the home page, Vice Canada is not in compliance with section 8. Massoudi argues that no matter what standard of interpretation is applied, consideration must be given to the words set out in the statute.

[63] I disagree with Massoudi's submission and adopt this statement contained in Southey J.'s dissent at p. 216:

To hold that there was not sufficient compliance with s.8(1) of the Libel and Slander Act because the "head of the editorials" must mean at the top of the editorial page constitutes, in my respectful judgment, a failure to give the Libel and Slander Act the fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation that would best ensure the attainment of the object of the Act, as required by s. 10 of the Interpretation Act.

[64] In this case, Vice Canada is the proprietor and publisher of the Article. The masthead was accessed by clicking on the "About Us" tab, which I am satisfied is the digital equivalent of "flipping a page" to the masthead of a print publication. The "About Us" tab was located at the bottom of every page on the website, rendering it obvious and accessible.

[65] The content of the masthead was taken directly from the print magazine. It listed the publisher of Vice Canada as Ryan Archibald. The Article displayed the word "Vice" in bold font at the top-left corner of the webpage, and "Canada" at the top-right corner. In my view, it was clear that Vice Canada was the publisher. The Canadian editorial leadership, their email addresses, and the Toronto address of the Vice Toronto office were listed on the masthead.

[66] I am satisfied that the purpose of section 8 was easily satisfied in this case. Any reader, including Massoudi, would have no difficulty in determining who published the material, thereby providing them the notice needed to take any necessary legal action.

[67] I am supported in this conclusion by Massoudi's own conduct. Massoudi clearly had, and acted on, the information needed to identify the parties. Within hours of the Article being published, Massoudi contacted Vice Canada to communicate his concerns and express his intention to sue. Vice Canada then acted on this communication by issuing a 'clarification' at the top of the Article, again asking Massoudi to contact them.

D. Conclusion

[68] Vice Canada's motion is granted. This case is suitable for summary judgment. Sections 7 and 8 of the LSA were complied with and Massoudi's claim is statute barred pursuant to section 6 of the LSA.

E. Costs

[69] I would encourage the parties to try to settle costs of this motion. If they cannot, Vice Canada may serve and file written cost submissions within 20 days of the release of these Reasons for Judgment, followed by Mr. Massoudi's written cost submissions within a further 15 days. The cost submissions shall not exceed three pages in length, excluding the Bill of Costs.

J.K. Penman J.

Released: September 11, 2025