Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. Page 10 that judgment, the Court of Appeal set forth the substance of the single publication Some time was taken during the appeal in exploring, with the help of American authorities, the nature of the "single publication rule" in the United States. We take the following clear statement of that rule from the judgment of District Judge Holtzoff sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Ogden v Association of the United States Army (1959) 177 F Supp 498, 502: "From the foregoing discussion the conclusion is inescapable that the modern American law of libel has adopted the so-called 'single publication' rule; and, therefore, this principle must be deemed a part of the common law of the District of Columbia. In other words, it is the prevailing American doctrine that the publication of a book, periodical or newspaper containing defamatory matter gives rise to but one cause of action for libel, which accrues at the time of the original publication, and that the statute of limitations runs from that date. It is no longer the law that every sale or delivery of a copy of the publication creates a new cause of action." [16] In the instant case, Taylor J. found that since the appellant knew more than two years prior to the amendment of her statement of claim of the existence of the Dberlane comment, she could not rely on the continued presence of the item on the forum in the spring of 2002 as a foundation for advancing her claim against the Federation. The judge said this at para. 84 of his reasons: If the plaintiff is correct in terms of a republication occurring each time a user accesses the forum and such a user was able to read the Dberlane comment, quite apart from the myriad of other innocent postings, then a site provider (as opposed to a service provider such as Blue Frogg) such as the Federation could never avail itself of any limitation period defence. A similar argument was advanced unsuccessfully in the Loutchansky case. In Loutchansky, the court observed: 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) rule: