A Canadian company published an article on the internet defaming an Australian resident. The Australian resident brought action against the Canadian company. With regards to internet jurisdiction, which of the following statements is true
A) Since the plaintiff lived in Australia, and the defendant was based in Canada, a third neutral country would be the appropriate jurisdiction.
B) The Canadian company's appropriate defence would be to point out out that it is impossible to know and comply with the laws of every jurisdiction, and therefore not liable.
C) Since the company was Canadian, the most convenient jurisdiction would be the province the Canadian company resides.
D) Since the plaintiff lived in Australia, and the harm was done in that country, there is no connection between the defamation and Canada, and appropriately there is no jurisdiction.
E) Since the plaintiff lived in Australia, and the harm was done in that country, there is a sufficient connection between the defamation and that country, and case would be heard in an Australian court.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The harm was done in Australia and there is a clear connection between the plaintiff and that country. Therefore, the case would be heard in an Australian court. Choice A is incorrect because a third neutral country would not be appropriate if there is a clear connection to another jurisdiction. Choice B is incorrect because ignorance of laws in other jurisdictions is not a defense for committing a tortious act. Choice C is incorrect because convenience is not the determining factor for jurisdiction. Choice D is incorrect because the harm was done in Australia, which creates a connection to that country.

A Canadian Company Published an Article on the Internet Defaming