Online Defamation: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn't! скачать в хорошем качестве

Online Defamation: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn't!

0:00 Intro 0:30 Skip Intro Welcome to "Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!" In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a case involving internet defamation and the constitutional limits of permanent court ordered restrictions on speech. After an unpleasant experience at a coffee shop, a customer engaged in a sustained and targeted online campaign against a specific location. The conduct included repeated negative reviews, the creation of fake profiles, and continued postings across multiple platforms over a long period of time. A court initially issued an injunction to stop the behaviour. When that injunction was breached, the court imposed a permanent injunction prohibiting the individual from ever expressing opinions about the business again. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal. Key Points Discussed – A customer engaged in a prolonged online campaign targeting a single business – The conduct included repeated negative reviews and the use of fake online profiles – A court issued an injunction to stop the harassment – The injunction was breached, leading to a permanent injunction – The permanent injunction prohibited the individual from ever expressing opinions about the business again – The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal Why This Case Matters Freedom of expression is a Charter protected right, even when that expression is critical or unpopular. While courts can impose limits to prevent harassment and defamation, permanent restrictions on speech raise serious constitutional concerns. This case highlights the tension between protecting businesses from abuse and preserving an individual’s ability to express personal experiences, particularly where the restriction applies indefinitely. Missed Opportunity for a National Standard The Supreme Court of Canada could have clarified: – When permanent injunctions are appropriate in defamation cases – How courts should balance freedom of expression against protection from harassment – Whether lifetime bans on expression can ever be justified under the Charter Need for Clarity and Accountability By declining to hear this case, the Supreme Court left unresolved questions about how far courts can go in restricting speech to address online misconduct. Without guidance, permanent injunctions that limit Charter protected expression risk becoming normalized, even in cases involving private disputes rather than broader public harms. Topics Covered – Internet defamation – Permanent injunctions – Freedom of expression under the Charter – Limits on court ordered speech restrictions – Online harassment and judicial remedies 📅 New Episodes Weekly: Subscribe to our channel for weekly insights from lawyer Kyla Lee as she analyzes cases that should have been heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. 👉 Watch more episodes:    • Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme...   👉 Follow Kyla on Twitter: www.twitter.com/irplawyer 👉 Visit our website: www.vancouvercriminallaw.com 🎥 Credits: Thank you to Brazen Bull Creative for producing these videos. 👍 Like, Subscribe, and Share: If you found this video insightful, please like, subscribe, and share with your network to support our channel.