TORONTO -- A libel action stemming from an Israeli newspaper article about a Canadian businessman can proceed in Ontario, the province's top court ruled Tuesday.

The split decision in favour of Mitchell Goldhar, of Toronto, relates to a story published by Haaretz in November 2011 in which the paper criticized his management practices as owner of the Tel Aviv-based Maccabi Tel Aviv Football Club, which plays in the Israeli premier league.

Among other things, the paper accused him of "penny pinching" and a "lack of long-term planning" that could doom the team, court documents show.

The article was also published on the paper's websites in both English and Hebrew and therefore was available in Canada.

Goldhar sued in Ontario, claiming $700,000 in damages for libel against Haaretz, its sports editor and the reporter. He argued the article suggested "behavioural characteristics of megalomania, a personality disorder or mental illness" and that he made "irrational" business decisions.

He also said the article had significant factual errors and fabrications.

In response, Haaretz argued Ontario courts had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. Any trial should be held in Israel or the claim stayed as an abuse of process.

In response, Goldhar said he wanted a jury trial -- something not available in Israel. He also said he would not seek any damages for harm to his reputation outside Canada, and he offered to pay for Haaretz's witnesses to travel to Ontario.

In March last year, Superior Court Justice Mario Faieta sided with the businessman, finding as many as 300 people in Canada had read the article online, that Ontario had jurisdiction and was a convenient place for a trial, and there was no abuse of process.

Haaretz, Israel's oldest newspaper, turned to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Among other things, it argued the link between the suit and Ontario was tenuous at best.

However, the Appeal Court rejected the paper's arguments. Writing for the court, Justice Janet Simmons backed by Justice Eleanore Cronk found the subject matter of both the article and the action had a significant connection to Ontario.

While they did not weigh in on the merits of his claim, the justices did conclude this was not a case of "libel tourism."

"The article puts Goldhar's Canadian connection front and centre by acknowledging that he is a long-distance operator and spends most of his time in Canada, and by asserting that he imported his management model for Maccabi Tel Aviv from his main business interest, his Canadian shopping centre partnership," the Appeal Court said.

"It was no surprise -- and not unfair -- that Goldhar would choose to vindicate his reputation in Ontario."

The court rejected Haaretz suggestions that the suit was an abuse of process in that it amounted to forum shopping and an attempt to "muzzle" the paper.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sarah Pepall said the case illustrates the difficulty in balancing free speech against defamation. Still, Pepall said, the action would more properly be tried in Israel even if Ontario courts have jurisdiction.

"Israel is clearly the more appropriate forum," Pepall said. "Additionally, such an outcome is in the interests of justice."