Defence of Innocent Dissemination at Common Law

• Author: David A. Potts
• Profession: Barrister, Bar of Ontario
• Pages: 279-287

279

 : Defence of Innocent

Dissemination at Common Law

A. INTRODUCTION

e defence of in nocent dissemination is very important because of t he

pivotal role of intermediaries in cyberlibel. I n fact in many cases, aside from

the defence of no publication, the defence of innocent dissemination may be

the only defence available to intermediaries.

B. INNOCEN T DISSEMINATION

See Roger D. McConchie a nd David A. Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander

Actions (Toronto: Irwin Law, ), Chapter  at – .

A defendant may be able to rely on the common law defence of innocent

dissemination. In certain circumsta nces, a defendant will be held not to have

published the defamatory expression if:

. it was disseminated in the ordina ry course of business;

. the defendant was innocent of any knowledge of the libel contained in the

work the defendant disseminated;

. there was nothing in the work or the circu mstances under which it came

to the defendant or was disseminated by the defendant that ought to have

led the defendant to suppose that it contained a libel; and

. when the work was disseminated by the defendant, it was not by any neg-

ligence on the defendant’s par t that t he defendant did not know that it

contained the libel.

Vizetelly v. Mudie’s Select Library Limited , []  Q.B.  (C.A.), per Rom L.

Slack v. Ad-Rite Associa tes Ltd. (),  O.T.C. , per Fedak J. at paras. – (Gen.

Div.), citing Vizetelly v. Mudie’s Select Library Limited, []  Q.B.  (C.A.)