Crookes et al. v. Newton, (2011) 421 N.R. 205 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateDecember 07, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2011), 421 N.R. 205 (SCC);2011 SCC 47

Crookes v. Newton (2011), 421 N.R. 205 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. OC.025

Wayne Crookes and West Coast Title Search Ltd. (appellants) v. Jon Newton (respondent) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, NetCoalition, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Magazines Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Writers' Union of Canada, Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and Canadian Publishers' Council (intervenors)

(33412; 2011 SCC 47; 2011 CSC 47)

Indexed As: Crookes et al. v. Newton

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

October 19, 2011.

Summary:

Crookes and his company, West Coast Title Search Ltd. (together Crookes) sued Newton, the owner and operator of a website, www.p2pnet, for damages for defamation. Crookes alleged that he was defamed in various articles which first appeared on the Internet in 2005. Three of the articles, entitled "Wayne Crookes", "Friends of Crookes" and "Gang of Crookes" appeared on the website, www.openpolitics.ca ("openpolitics"). A fourth article, entitled "Wayne Crookes", appeared on the website, www.usgovernetics.com ("usgovernetics"). On July 18, 2006, Newton authored an article on his website, headed "Free Speech in Canada" which contained a hyperlink to the "Wayne Crookes" article found on the usgovernetics website, and a hyperlink to the openpolitics website containing the other impugned articles. Crookes sued for defamation, claiming that by creating these hyperlinks Newton became a publisher of the impugned articles found at the hyperlinked websites. A summary trial ensued pursuant to Rule 18A of the Rules of Court.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. C83, dismissed the action on the basis that Crookes had failed to prove publication of the alleged defamatory libel. Crookes appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 276 B.C.A.C. 105; 468 W.A.C. 105, dismissed the appeal. Crookes appealed. At issue was whether hyperlinks that connected to allegedly defamatory material could be said to "publish" that material.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Since in the court's view the use of a hyperlink could not, by itself, amount to publication even if the hyperlink was followed and the defamatory content was accessed, Crookes' action against Newton could not succeed. Moreover, even if Crookes had alleged that Newton should be understood, in context, to have expressed defamatory meaning, the court would agree with the trial judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal that the statements containing the impugned hyperlinks on Newton's webpage could not be understood, even in context with the hyperlinked documents, to express any opinion, defamatory or otherwise, on Crookes or the hyperlinked content.

Civil Rights - Topic 1841.8

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Internet - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 1941 and second Libel and Slander - Topic 1945 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 1941

Publication - What constitutes - General - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that under the traditional publication rule, any act which had the effect of transferring the defamatory information to a third person constituted a publication - The court noted further that applying the traditional publication rule to internet hyperlinks would have the effect of creating a presumption of liability for all hyperlinkers, an "untenable situation" - The court preferred to interpret the publication rule to exclude mere references, hyperlinks, being, in essence, references - The court stated that this interpretation accorded not only with a more sophisticated appreciation of Charter values, but with the dramatic transformation in the technology of communications - The court opined that it was the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material who was publishing the libel when a person followed a hyperlink to that content - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1945

Publication - What constitutes - Internet (world wide web) - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that when a hyperlink had been inserted on a webpage, it should be presumed that the content to which the hyperlink connected was brought to the knowledge of a third party and had therefore been published - See paragraph 14.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1945

Publication - What constitutes - Internet (world wide web) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that: "The Internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks. Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression. The potential 'chill' in how the Internet functions could be devastating, since primary article authors would unlikely want to risk liability for linking to another article over whose changeable content they have no control. Given the core significance of the role of hyperlinking to the Internet, we risk impairing its whole functioning. Strict application of the publication rule in these circumstances would be like trying to fit a square archaic peg into the hexagonal hole of modernity" - See paragraph 36.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1945

Publication - What constitutes - Internet (world wide web) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Making reference to the existence and/or location of content by hyperlink or otherwise, without more, is not publication of that content. Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be 'published' by the hyperlinker. Such an approach promotes expression and respects the realities of the Internet, while creating little or no limitations to a plaintiff's ability to vindicate his or her reputation. While a mere reference to another source should not fall under the wide breadth of the traditional publication rule, the rule itself and the limits of the one writer/any act/one reader paradigm may deserve further scrutiny in the future" - See paragraph 42.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1945

Publication - What constitutes - Internet (world wide web) - The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging that the defendant's insertion of hyperlinks on his webpage linking to defamatory material on other webpages and websites constituted publication of that defamatory content - The Supreme Court of Canada held that since the use of a hyperlink could not, by itself, amount to publication even if the hyperlink was followed and the defamatory content was accessed, the plaintiff's action against the defendant could not succeed - Moreover, even if the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant should be understood, in context, to have expressed defamatory meaning, the court would agree with the trial judge and the majority of the appeal court that the statements containing the impugned hyperlinks on the defendant's webpage could not be understood, even in context with the hyperlinked documents, to express any opinion, defamatory or otherwise, on the plaintiff or the hyperlinked content - See paragraph 44.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1945

Publication - What constitutes - Internet (world wide web) - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 1941 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640; 397 N.R. 1; 258 O.A.C. 285; 2009 SCC 61, refd to. [paras. 1, 54].

Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co., [1965] S.C.R. 297, refd to. [paras. 15, 55].

McNichol v. Grandy, [1931] S.C.R. 696, refd to. [paras. 16, 80].

Stanley v. Shaw et al. (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 186; 381 W.A.C. 186; 2006 BCCA 467, refd to. [paras. 16, 85].

Hiltz and Seamone Co. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (1997), 164 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 491 A.P.R. 161 (S.C.), affd. (1999), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 341; 527 A.P.R. 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

"Truth" (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Holloway, [1960] 1 W.L.R. 997 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lambert et al. v. Thomson et al., [1937] O.R. 341 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 82].

Pullman v. Hill, [1891] 1 Q.B. 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Clerk (1728), 1 Barn. K.B. 304; 94 E.R. 207, refd to. [paras. 18, 83].

Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Buchanan v. Jennings, [2004] UKPC 36; [2005] 1 A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 18].

Polson v. Davis (1986), 635 F. Supp. 1130 (D. Kan.), refd to. [para. 18].

Crain v. Lightner (1987), 364 S.E.2d 778 (W. Va.), refd to. [para. 18].

Spike v. Golding (1895), 27 N.S.R. 370 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; 322 N.R. 306; 2004 SCC 45, refd to. [paras. 20, 61].

Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library Ltd., [1990] 2 Q.B. 170 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Smith (W.H.) & Son Ltd., [1933] All E.R. Rep. 432 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Bunt v. Tilley, [2006] EWHC 407; [2006] 3 All E.R. 336 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 21, 89].

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corp., [2009] EWHC 1765 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 21, 90].

Klein v. Biben (1946), 296 N.Y. 638 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 72].

MacFadden v. Anthony (1952), 117 N.Y.S.2d 520 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 23, 72].

Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Association et al. (2005), 215 B.C.A.C. 159; 355 W.A.C. 159; 42 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2005 BCCA 398, refd to. [paras. 24, 70].

Zeran v. America Online Inc. (1997), 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.), refd to. [paras. 28, 103].

Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006), 40 Cal.4th 33 (Cal.), refd to. [paras. 28, 103].

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com LLC (2008), 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.), refd to. [paras. 28, 103].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [paras. 29, 64].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 49].

WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson - see Simpson v. Mair et al.

Simpson v. Mair et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420; 376 N.R. 80; 256 B.C.A.C. 1; 431 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 40, refd to. [paras. 32, 54].

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), 521 U.S. 844, refd to. [para. 33].

Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia et al. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 238; 71 O.R.(3d) 416 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 39, 82].

Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., [1944] A.C. 116 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39].

Butler et al. v. Southam Inc. et al. (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 97; 616 A.P.R. 97; 2001 NSCA 121, refd to. [para. 39].

Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214; 412 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 39].

Gambrill v. Schooley (1901), 93 Md. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Day v. Bream (1837), 2 M. & R. 54; 174 E.R. 212, refd to. [para. 83].

Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd., [1999] 4 All E.R. 342 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84].

Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56; [2002] 210 C.L.R. 575, refd to. [para. 84].

Smith v. Matsqui (District) (1986), 4 B.C.L.R.(2d) 342 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Wilson v. Meyer (2005), 126 P.3d 276 (Colo. App.), refd to. [para. 85].

Pond v. General Electric Co. (1958), 256 F.2d 824 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 85].

Scott v. Hull (1970), 259 N.E.2d 160 (Oh. App.), refd to. [para. 85].

Byrne v. Deane, [1937] K.B. 818 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Hellar v. Bianco (1952), 244 P.2d 757 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 86].

Tackett v. General Motors Corp. (1987), 836 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 86].

Urbanchich v. Drummoyne Municipal Council (1991), Aust. Torts Rep. 81-127 (N.S.W. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 86].

Frawley v. State of New South Wales, [2007] NSWSC 1379, refd to. [para. 87].

Underhill v. Corser, [2010] EWHC 1195 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 87].

Islam Expo Ltd. v. The Spectator (1828) Ltd., [2010] EWHC 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 104].

Jameel et al. v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, [2007] 1 A.C. 359; 362 N.R. 314; [2006] UKHL 44, refd to. [para. 115].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Balkin, Jack M., The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age (2009), 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 427, pp. 433, 434 [para. 28].

Baynham, Bryan G., and Reid, Daniel J., The Modern-Day Soapbox: Defamation in the Age of the Internet, in Defamation Law: Materials prepared for the Continuing Legal Education seminar, Defamation Law 2010, generally [para. 38].

Boivin, Denis W., Accommodating Freedom of Expression and Reputation in the Common Law of Defamation (1996-1997), 22 Queen's L.J. 229, generally [para. 33].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994) (Looseleaf), vol. 2, paras. 5.2, 5.4(1)(a), 6.1 [para. 39]; 7.2 [paras. 55, 80, 107]; 7.3 [paras. 16, 19, 83]; 7.4 [paras. 82, 85]; 7.8 [paras. 80, 107]; 7.12(6)(c) [para. 20].

Collins, Matthew, The Law of Defamation and the Internet (3rd Ed. 2010), paras. 2.42 [para. 27]; 2.43 [paras. 6, 27, 64]; 5.42 [paras. 27, 34]; 7.06 to 7.08, 8.20, 8.21 [para. 40].

Dalal, Anjali, Protecting Hyperlinks and Preserving First Amendment Values on the Internet (2011), 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1017, generally [para. 35].

Danay, Robert, The Medium is not the Message: Reconciling Reputation and Free Expression in Cases of Internet Defamation (2010), 56 McGill L.J. 1, generally [para. 33].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (11th Ed. 2008), pp. 164 [paras. 80, 107]; 169 [para. 82].

Iacobucci, Frank, Recent Developments Concerning Freedom of Speech and Privacy in the Context of Global Communications Technology (1999), 48 U.N.B.L.J. 189, generally [para. 33].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (4th Ed. 2008), pp. 746, 747 [para. 33].

Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett, Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace (2000), 49 Duke L.J. 855, pp. 863, 864 [para. [para. 37].

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (8th Ed. 2006), pp. 783, 784 [para. 20].

Lindsay, David, Liability for the Publication of Defamatory Material via the Internet, Research Paper No. 10 (2000), pp. 14 [para. 28]; 78 [paras. 28, 34]; 79 [para. 34].

Osborne, Philip H., The Law of Torts (4th Ed. 2011), p. 411 [para. 20].

Ross, June, The Common Law of Defamation Fails to Enter the Age of the Charter (1996), 35 Alta. L. Rev. 117, generally [para. 33].

Sableman, Mark, Link Law Revisited: Internet Linking Law at Five Years (2001), 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1273, p. 1276 [para. 34].

Streeter, Jeremy, The Deception Exception: A New Approach to Section 2(b) Values and Its Impact on Defamation law (2003), 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 79, generally [para. 33].

Counsel:

Donald J. Jordan, Q.C., and Robert A. Kasting, for the appellants;

Daniel W. Burnett and Harvey S. Delaney, for the respondent;

Wendy Matheson, Andrew Bernstein and Molly Reynolds, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Richard G. Dearden and Wendy J. Wagner, for the intervenor, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic;

William C. McDowell, Marguerite F. Ethier, Naomi D. Loewith and Colin S. Baxter, for the intervenor, NetCoalition;

Roy W. Millen, Paul Schabas and Jon Goheen, for the intervenor, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Robert S. Anderson, Q.C., and Ludmila B. Herbst, for the intervenors, the Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Magazines Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Writers' Union of Canada, the Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and the Canadian Publishers' Council.

Solicitors of Record:

Stewart, Aulinger & Company, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellants;

Owen Bird Law Corporation, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent;

Torys, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic;

Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, NetCoalition;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors, the Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Magazines Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Writers' Union of Canada, the Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and the Canadian Publishers' Council.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 2010, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was released, in both official languages, on October 19, 2011, including the following opinions:

Abella, J. (Binnie, LeBel, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 45;

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Fish, J. (joint concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 46 to 53;

Deschamps, J. (concurring in the result) - see paragraphs 54 to 130.

To continue reading

Request your trial
118 practice notes
  • Hansman v Neufeld,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 19, 2023
    ...of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 2012 BCSC 181; Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416; Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269; Pineau v. KMI Publishing and Events Ltd., 2022 BCCA 426; Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; R. v......
  • Crookes et al. v. Newton, [2011] N.R. TBEd. OC.025
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 7, 2010
    ...Writers' Union of Canada, Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and Canadian Publishers' Council (interveners) (33412; 2011 SCC 47; 2011 CSC Indexed As: Crookes et al. v. Newton Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rot......
  • Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 19, 2023
    ...of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 2012 BCSC 181; Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416; Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269; Pineau v. KMI Publishing and Events Ltd., 2022 BCCA 426; Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; R. v......
  • Crookes et al. v. Newton, (2011) 310 B.C.A.C. 76 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 7, 2010
    ...Writers' Union of Canada, Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and Canadian Publishers' Council (intervenors) (33412; 2011 SCC 47; 2011 CSC Indexed As: Crookes et al. v. Newton Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
76 cases
  • Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 10, 2020
    ...A.C. 135; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269; Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 666; Platnick v. Bent (No. 2), 2016 ONSC 7474; Palmer v. The Queen, [1980......
  • Crookes et al. v. Newton, [2011] N.R. TBEd. OC.025
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 7, 2010
    ...Writers' Union of Canada, Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and Canadian Publishers' Council (interveners) (33412; 2011 SCC 47; 2011 CSC Indexed As: Crookes et al. v. Newton Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rot......
  • Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 19, 2023
    ...of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 2012 BCSC 181; Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416; Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269; Pineau v. KMI Publishing and Events Ltd., 2022 BCCA 426; Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; R. v......
  • Crookes et al. v. Newton, (2011) 310 B.C.A.C. 76 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 7, 2010
    ...Writers' Union of Canada, Professional Writers Association of Canada, PEN Canada and Canadian Publishers' Council (intervenors) (33412; 2011 SCC 47; 2011 CSC Indexed As: Crookes et al. v. Newton Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 30 ' December 4, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 9, 2020
    ...Anti-SLAPP, Summary Judgment, Courts of Justice Act, s. 137.1, Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co., [1965] 2 S.C.R. 297, Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Castellano, 2020 ONCA 71, Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61. Short Civil Decisions......
  • Supreme Court rules hyperlinks are not publications
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • February 14, 2012
    ...at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP by telephone (+1 416 863 4511), fax (+1 416 863 4592) or email ( jacob.kaufman@fmc-law.com). Endnotes (1) 2011 SCC 47. (2) (1728), 1 Barn KB 304 . (3) Crookes v Newton, supra note 1, para 36. (4) Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C -42. (5) Libel and Slander Act , ......
  • Can Sharing A Hyperlink Be Considered Copyright Infringement? Still TBD
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 28, 2022
    ...right). Then the Court considered Mr. Linkletter's defense by briefly reviewing and distinguishing two Canadian cases (Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47 and Warman v. Fournier, 2012 FC 803), and apparently relied upon a European authority (which does not have binding authority in Canada) for t......
  • Defamation In The Blogosphere: Baglow v Smith
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 11, 2015
    ...conceded that they were publishers of the post according to the definition provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47 "To prove the publication element of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has, by any act, conveyed defamatory meaning to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures 2012: Employment Law and the New Workplace in the Social Media Age
    • June 18, 2013
    ...3252 (Brathwaite Grievance) (2012), 214 LAC (4th) 227, [2012] OLAA No 29 (Levinson) ................ 158, 265, 267, 297 Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47 .................................................................66, 231, 233 Cruise Connections Canada v Cancellieri, 2012 BCSC 53 ...............
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Torts. Sixth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...[1942] AC 435, [1942] 1 All ER 142 (HL) .............................................................................346 Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47 ........................................................................ 450 Cropvise Inc v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, [2018] NBJ No 1......
  • Interlocutory Injunctions: Specific Areas
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...35, discussed in Chapter 9. 98 See Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416 at para. 32 (C.A.); and Crookes v. Newton , 2011 SCC 47 at para. 37. 99 Canadian National Railway Co. v. Google , 2010 ONSC 3121 at para. 13 (S.C.J.), granting the interlocutory injunction; and Hutc......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • June 18, 2013
    ...Ltd., 2010 ONSC 2672 ......................................................................................... 369 Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47 ......................................................................... 85 Crown Life Assurance Co. v. Medipac International Inc. (1996), 3 O.T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT