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.
Post Tagged with: "online harms"
Online Harms’ Forgotten Generation: Why the Government Needs to Pay Attention to Protecting Seniors
For much of the past month, someone has been trying to break into my Apple account. I receive regular e-mail and text notifications confirming a password change, which are soon followed by spoofed phone calls with caller ID that purports to be from the company but likely originates from Russia. As my Globe and Mail op-ed notes, I know enough to ignore the calls, delete the messages, and ensure I have two-factor authentication enabled to help keep hackers out.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Bill C-36 Modernizes Canada’s Privacy Law, Then Delays It to 2030
Canada’s private sector privacy law is more than 25 years old and there is broad consensus that a modernization is long overdue. Bill C-36, tabled on Monday, is the government’s third attempt at updating the law, following the failed efforts with Bill C-11 in 2020 and Bill C-27 in 2022. My first post on the new bill focused on what I think remains both the most important development and the biggest mistake: the decision to push the Privacy Commissioner of Canada out of private-sector privacy and to place the file with an overloaded digital safety commission. For years, privacy critics have argued that, given the absence of order-making powers or serious penalties, Canada’s biggest shortcoming has been weak enforcement. Yet just as the government adds much-needed new rights and penalties to the privacy law framework, it undermines enforcement once again by introducing a new regulator that will take years to establish. The consequence is that, rather than updating the law for 2027, it is updating it for 2030 or later.
The Exemption Illusion: Why the Government’s Plan to Fast Track Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Means No Standards, No Privacy Review, and No Enforcement
One of the most heavily promoted features of Bill C-34, the government’s Safe Social Media Act, is that its social media ban for those under 16 comes with a potential exemption for platforms that satisfy the new Digital Safety Commission that they provide adequate safeguards for children. But based on comments from government officials, it appears the exemption is an illusion, at least for years to come. The legislation carefully sets out how the ban is supposed to work, but officials at a technical briefing on the bill this week described a very different plan that involves moving quickly after Royal Assent with regulations to bring the ban into force without waiting for the Digital Safety Commission to be fully operational. No Commission means no age verification standards, no privacy review, no exemption, and no effective enforcement. It also creates huge risks since the initial start of the ban is when tens of millions of Canadians would be required to verify their age, yet the government is sidelining the privacy protections written into its own bill and essentially conceding that the ban is unlikely to carry any real consequences for those services that fail to comply when it first takes effect.
The Law to Be Named Later: Bill C-34 Punts 50 Key Decisions to Cabinet and a Digital Safety Commission That Does Not Yet Exist
The government’s plan to address online safety was introduced yesterday with Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, featuring an under-16 social media ban, pornography age verification, AI chatbot rules, and platform regulation that I argued amount to an everything-all-at-once approach built on a “trust us” bet. My initial guide to the bill highlighted many key issues, but this follow-up examines just how much has been left for later. In many respects, Bill C-34 is best understood as version 1.0 of the Safe Social Media Act with a framework that establishes institutions, sets penalty ceilings, and fixes the age of 16 in the statute. But the bill leaves nearly everything that will determine how the law actually works, including which services are covered, when the ban applies and to whom, what counts as adequate age verification, and what design features platforms must build, to what amounts to a version 2.0 that will be developed later through multiple regulatory processes.
Recent Posts
Named to Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers 
Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Asking Google Maps to Defy the U.S. on Lake Ontario Would Undermine Canadian Digital Sovereignty 
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain 
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences 
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle
