The legislative efforts to combat online harms in Canada have focused chiefly on platform responsibility, with Bill C-34 reintroducing a regulated duty to act responsibly. An Ontario court recently considered another avenue to address harms that instead targets influencers who weaponize their audiences. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision that extends the tort of Internet harassment into networked harassment, in which influencers or those with large online audiences encourage their followers to target individuals. In Miller v. Ahn, the court granted an interim injunction against a social media creator with more than 100,000 followers who had mobilized her audience against a Toronto employment lawyer. The actions led to fake reviews of her firm, threatening phone calls and messages, and antisemitic abuse that was directed at the lawyer’s perceived Jewish and Israeli identity.
The case began with an online war of words between Katerina Miller, lead lawyer of a small Toronto employment law firm, and Jieun Ahn, who posts on several social media sites under the name “Ginnysaidso”. After Miller responded to Ahn’s posts about Israel-Palestine with insults, the court found that Ahn launched a disproportionate and orchestrated campaign against her, including a video posted to her accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X that displayed Miller’s personal Facebook page, her firm’s page with the note that opportunities to post reviews were “wide open,” and the profile of Miller’s husband, which highlighted his Tel Aviv University education and a small Israeli flag accompanying pictures of their kids. The campaign worked as Ahn’s followers posted fake reviews and messages the court described as antisemitic, utterly vile, and at times overtly threatening, including death wishes directed at Miller’s family. After Miller sent a cease-and-desist letter, Ahn mocked it and later celebrated the fallout in a separate post declaring that Miller was learning the consequences of “FAFO.”
Courts in Canada have recognized the tort of harassment in Internet communications, notably in Caplan v. Atas in 2021. But the court in Caplan reserved the tort for the most extreme conduct, requiring communications so outrageous in character, duration, and degree as to exceed all bounds of decency. In this case, the court adapted the tort into a mechanism for holding influencers responsible when they target an individual. Mobilizing the audience, approving their conduct, and refusing calls to stop the attacks were all treated as part of the defendant’s communications conduct. The ruling is just an interim determination based on a largely uncontested record, but the court concluded that the harassment claim was very likely to succeed at trial.
It therefore granted a mandatory interim injunction requiring the removal of two posts and prohibiting similar posts or expressions on any media, as well as any publication of identifying information about Miller or her family. The injunction targets conduct such as incitement of a mob against a named individual and the deliberate identification of that individual to a hostile audience based on her perceived Jewish and Israeli identity. This last element, which involved zooming in on an Israeli flag superimposed over a photograph of her young children, was viewed as particularly ominous. The order’s connection to the alleged harassment makes it understandable, though the implications for freedom of expression are sure to prompt pushback at the next hearing.
While the case is focused on the influencer, the claim also names Google, YouTube, and Meta as defendants, meaning the platform accountability questions I raised in my recent Globe and Mail op-ed may be the subject of a future hearing. But for the moment, the case points to the development of a tort of networked harassment, effectively an influencer equivalent of the duty to act responsibly, restricting the ability to weaponize online audiences against individuals and holding influencers accountable where they act with knowledge of the potential harms that may follow.
