2008 May 29

Beidas v. Pichler, [2008] O.J. No. 2135, reversing [2007] O.J. No. 3684

A three member panel of the Ontario Divisional Court set aside an interim injunction which prohibited the defendants from publishing any material which may identify the plaintiffs and that all references to the plaintiffs be deleted from the Internet. Murray J. held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove irreparable harm on the basis of clear evidence, and their refusal to submit to cross-examination was fatal to interlocutory relief.  Further, the orders were too broad and unnecessarily impaired freedom of speech and expression. The fact that defamatory expression is placed on the Internet did not over-ride the stringent test for granting prior restraint. “The Internet should not be less free for expression than other media.  The Internet may present unique problems and unique challenges but its use does not and should not invite unwarranted restriction on freedom of expression.” Molloy J. concurred that the injunction was  overly broad but would have agreed to amend it if the other two members of the Court were prepared to do so (they were not). Pitt J., dissenting, would have sustained the interlocutory injunction, noting that the defendant’s statements were bizarre and that the alleged defence of truth was unlikely to succeed.