Earlier this week Zak S posted on one of his blogs - https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/06/im-suing.html - that he was suing Mandy for defamation in "the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa for her Facebook post." I don't know how Canada has jurisdiction over Zak's complaint, but it is safe to assume he has filed the suit in Ottowa is due to the fact that Canadian law is much more favorable to defamation claims than most of the Commonwealth as well as the United States.
Some interesting parts from the Wikipedia article:
In a 2006 commentary comparing Canadian laws with US and Commonwealth laws at that time, the situation was described thus:
For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.
Libel law developed in an ancient era which we would today consider backward, tyrannical and repressive. It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism. Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel we would recognize today had been established. In Law of Defamation in Canada, Professor Brown notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as "artificial and archaic" and characterized by "absurdities", "irrationality", and "minute and barren distinctions" (pp. 1–3).
While social values and legal concepts have evolved dramatically of the past 200 years, the common law of libel in Canada remains startlingly unchanged.Even more relevant I think:
In general Canadian defamation judgements against Americans are not collectible in the United States under the SPEECH Act, and have to be re-proven in an American court in the state where the defendant resides. The exception may be Quebec which has broad protections for political comment and respects international laws (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) similar to the US's own First Amendment.So, should Zak win, the judgment wouldn't be enforceable in the US.
Tip of the hat to Rob Conley.
I cover some of this in last night's Tavern Chat podcast, including a full reading of Zak's latest statement:
(edit - apparently this is a "slanted article" according to at least one commenter on social media because I make Zak S "look bad" and reference Wikipedia. While I find Wikipedia somewhat iffy when it comes to personalities that are in the current news cycle, using it to reference something like Canadian Defamation Law I find is fairly solid. YMMV. Oh, and yes, Zak S is an asshole in my opinion. Doesn't change anything written above.)