In this case, a defamation suit arose after NY Post journalist Larry Brooks wrote a column about a hockey fight in Vancouver containing allegations about manager Brian Burke which he claimed to be untrue. The column was published in the paper and also appeared in its website. What’s interesting about this case is that a British Columbia court faced a defamation action against a U.S. publisher. The court held that it could properly exercise jurisdiction and apply local law because it was foreseeable that Burke would bring suit in the forum. This foreseeability determination rested on two findings. First, Burke had an established reputation in British Columbia. Second, it was foreseeable that a British Columbian audience would be interested in plaintiff's online newspaper column, regardless of whether the foreign publisher intended to address that audience. When combined with the strong cross-border reputation of the defendant's newspaper (the New York Post) and its sports columnist (Larry Brooks), these facts, the court held, made it foreseeable that the online posting of the story would be read in British Columbia by both ordinary readers and the by British Columbia media -- even if no paper editions were sold in British Columbia.

This case helped re-frame the "here, there (and everywhere)" narrative as an engagement in legally inscribing wider borders around the relevant online community regardless of geographic territory -- that is, to be defining the relevant public as that with which a defendant's Internet activity is engaged and so to set the scale of that activity in a globalized online world.