Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. Page 15 If defamatory comments are available in cyberspace to harm the reputation of an individual, it seems appropriate that the individual ought to have a remedy. In the defendant respondent did not take effective steps to have the offensive material removed in a timely way. Although, for the reasons noted by the trial judge, legislatures may have to come to grips with publication issues thrown up by the new development of widespread internet publication, to date the issue has not been legislatively addressed and in default of that, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for this Court to adopt the American rule over the rule that seems to be generally accepted throughout the Commonwealth; namely, that each publication of a libel gives a fresh cause of action. I consider that the trial judge fell into error when he held that the action of the plaintiff was out of time because she had not commenced her action within two years of first learning of the existence of the Dberlane comment. If Ms. Carter can establish that there occurred publications of the offending comment subsequent to the first publication in February of 2000, then her cause of action would not be time barred. I would observe that there seems to be some obscurity as to exactly what the evidence does disclose about subsequent publication but I do not consider that the plaintiff should be prevented from seeking to establish, if she can, that there was subsequent publication to others which would found a cause of action. 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) instant case, the offending comment remained available on the internet because the