Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. Page 9 placard. I should say that the defendant there was taking active steps to publish to the world the defamatory material contained on the placard. I do not believe the take note of the fact that this was a reference in a printed newsletter to a website and I would limit the effect of this case to that factual situation. Whether a different result should obtain concerning an internet website that makes reference to another website I would leave for decision when that factual circumstance arises. In the result, I am not persuaded that the learned trial judge made any error in his assessment of this aspect of the matter and I would dismiss the appeal on this issue concerning the Bopeep Forum. [14] I turn now to a consideration of the trial judge's decision to dismiss the appellant's action against the Federation based on the Dberlane comment. That comment was found on the forum under the control of the Federation and maintained by the service provider Blue Frogg. The substantial basis relied upon by the trial judge in dismissing this particular claim was that it was out of time. The judge also went on to hold that in any event the publication was innocent and unintentional. The time bar argument based on the expiry of a limitation period was founded upon what is sometimes referred to as the "single publication rule". This appears to be a rule adopted by a number of American states, particularly New York State, but it is not a universal rule. [15] The single publication rule has not found favour in England: see Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2002] Q.B. 783 (C.A.). At para. 64 of 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) circumstances extant there can be successfully analogized to the instant case. I