Case of the Day: In re Application of Ontario Principals’ Council

The case of the day is In re Application of Ontario Principals’ Council (E.D. Cal. 2013). This is another § 1782 case arising out of a Canadian defamation action that I covered late last year. As in the earlier case, the judge granted the application after conducting an Intel analysis but refused the applicant’s request for an order enjoining the target of the subpoena from notifying its customers of the subpoena’s existence.

The interesting aspect of the decision is the Court’s brief First Amendment discussion. In the context of deciding whether the application was consistent with public policy, the judge noted that the First Amendment does not shield defamatory speech. Fair enough. But it would have been nice to have a discussion of the relevant differences between US and Canadian defamation law, and a consideration of the implications, if any, of the SPEECH Act for the issue. The SPEECH Act doesn’t say so, but I suppose one could think that if a foreign defamation judgment would be unenforceable in the United States, then as a matter of public policy the United States should not provide judicial assistance in the prosecution of the action.

6 responses to “Case of the Day: In re Application of Ontario Principals’ Council”

  1. Law Student

    Can I use this as a source for my essay? The thesis of my essay is Canadian democracy and the internet. Thanks.

    1. Oliver Stoneworth

      You are going to be sued if you using material which infringes the privacy rights of Gordana Stefulic, Vivian Mavrou and Varla Abrams. I know many Professors and Deans in nearly every post secondary school in Ontario. If I find that you are using this court document to criticize the court ruling which protects the teachers, then you are liable for defamation of character. The Toronto District School Board would never infringe on First Amendment rights, and the Judge is correct. Slandering people is not protected by free speech.

      1. Very poor form, Oliver Stoneworth. Threatening a law student writing a research paper–sheesh. What a bully. And pretty clearly ignorant of the law, too.

  2. […] could not succeed if brought in the United States, without at least discussing the policy? I noted this issue in January […]

  3. […] oomph to a request. The Intel factors that apply to a § 1782 are discretionary, and I’ve noted before that there seems to me to be a policy argument that in light of the SPEECH Act, perhaps US courts […]

  4. John Calhoun

    Toronto Police are using taxpayer dollars to coerce Google to shadowban your website:

    Defamation Complaint to Google
    Sent on February 22, 2018
    Google LLC
    Mountain View, CA, 94043, US
    Google LLC
    Re: Unknown
    NOTICE TYPE:Defamation
    Legal Complaint
    I am Detective Constable [REDACTED] [REDACTED] with the Toronto Police Cyber Crime Section, I can be contacted via our office number [REDACTED]. Vivian Mavrou has been the victim of a vicious defamation of character campaign since 2013. Toronto Police Service has police report 2[REDACTED] on file for this activity. As a result of these online postings the Ontario Principals Counsel has investigated Vice Principal Mavrou and ALL allegations have been proven to be false. However this online content continues to be posted on the Internet and readily visible because it is indexed on Google’s search engine. I hereby request your assistance in rectifying this situation by removing all indexed links and cached links to the URLS provided

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.