Nova Scotia's cyberbullying law declared to be unconstitutional and a "colossal failure"

Full disclosure: I was counsel to the applicant respondent in this case. (The party seeking to have the order set aside and to have the statute found to be unconstitutional.)

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has just released its decision in Crouch v Snell, 2015 NSCC 340 (PDF).

In the decision, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has declared the province’s cyberbullying law to be unconstitutional, from start to finish. The law has been found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantees of freedom of expression and “life, liberty and security of the person” rights, in a manner that cannot be upheld as a reasonable limit on those rights that can be justified in a free and democratic society. In short, the law is a dramatic failure.

The case related to two adults, former business partners, who had a falling out. Mr. Crouch sought and obtained an ex parte cybersafety protection order before a justice of the peace in December 2014. The respondent (I was his counsel) challenged the order and the legislation.

I have not been known as a fan of the Cyber-safety Act. I've blogged about it, written Op-Eds about it and I've called it a dumpster fire. It was passed unanimously by the Nova Scotia legislature in the immediate aftermath of the tragic death of Rehtaeh Parsons. In my view, it was created in haste in the immediate, emotional aftermath of the tragic death of a young woman who had been sexually assaulted and had photos of the assault circulated around the community. The government of the day -- which was heading for an election -- was not willing to throw the police and the prosecution service under the bus for no charges being laid, so instead created the appearance of doing something by creating and passing a very poorly executed law. In the process, they trampled on the Charter rights of all Nova Scotians and created a distraction from the important discussion about sexual assault and consent.

Among other things, the Act allows an alleged victim of cyberbullying to appear before a justice of the peace to obtain a cybersafety protection order. These orders can go so far as to result in the confiscation of electronic devices and being barred from using the internet. An alleged cyberbully never has any notice of this hearing and has no right to give his side before the order is made. In this case, the order of the justice of the peace even ordered the respondent to delete all of his social media postings that didn’t refer to anyone in particular, as they may have referred to the complainant.

The case mainly focused on two aspects: the definition of "cyberbullying" at the heart of the Act and the scheme that permits applications and orders without notice to the other side. The Court found the Act violates freedom of expression rights and cannot be saved. The definition is overbroad and encompasses a range of expression that is constitutionally protected:

[115] The Act restricts "any electronic communication through the use of technology ... that is intended or ought reasonably be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person's health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation, and includes assisting or encouraging such communication in any way". It is not difficult to come up with examples of expressive activity that falls within this definition, and at the same time promotes one of the core freedom of expression values. Moir J. did just that in Self, supra at para. 25:

A neighbour who calls to warn that smoke is coming from your upstairs windows causes fear. A lawyer who sends a demand letter by fax or e-mail causes intimidation. I expect Bob Dylan caused humiliation to P.F. Sloan when he released "Positively 4th Street", just as a local on-line newspaper causes humiliation when it reports that someone has been charged with a vile offence. Each is a cyberbully, according to the literal meaning of the definitions, no matter the good intentions of the neighbour, the just demand of the lawyer, or the truthfulness of Mr. Dylan or the newspaper.

[116] In conclusion, I find that the Act has both the purpose and effect of controlling or restricting freedom of expression.

Once any limitation on a Charter protected right is found, it can only be justified if (i) it is prescribed by law, (ii) it relates to a pressing and substantial objective, (iii) the impugned provision must be rationally connected to the objective, (iv) it must impair the Charter right "minimally" and (v) the effects must be proportional. In this case, remarkably, the Court found that it is not even "prescribed by law" as it is not sufficient intelligible:

[137] In this regard, I find that the Act provides no intelligible standard according to which Justices of the Peace and the judiciary must do their work. It does not provide sufficiently clear standards to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory applications. The Legislature has given a plenary discretion to do whatever seems best in a wide set of circumstances. There is no "limit prescribed by law" and the impugned provisions of the Act cannot be justified under s. 1. In the event I am wrong, I will perform the balance of the Oakes analysis.

The Court also found that the ex parte procedure is not rationally connected to the mischief to be addressed:

[156] ... Section 5(1) must be read as requiring protection order applications to be made without notice to the respondent. I also agree with the Respondent's submission that even if s. 5(1) did give applicants a choice in the matter, it would be a rare case indeed where an applicant would choose to give notice.

[157] Finally, with respect to the Attorney General's reliance on the various procedural safeguards set out in the Act, the reality is that while the respondent waits for the opportunity to be heard at a de novo hearing, his or her Charter-protected rights and freedoms will continue to be infringed upon. This will be on the basis of a proceeding that most likely occurred without notice to the respondent, and without the respondent having had an opportunity to be heard.

[158] I find the process set out in s. 5(1) of the Act is not rationally connected to the legislative objectives. The process does not specifically address a targeted mischief.

On "minimal impairment", the Court called the Act a "colossal failure":

[165] I need to consider all of the types of expression that may be caught in the net of the Cyber-safety Act, and determine whether the Act unnecessarily catches
material that has little or nothing to do with the prevention of cyberbullying: R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, [2001] S.C.J. No. 3 at para. 95. In this regard, the Cyber-safety Act, and the definition of cyberbullying in particular, is a colossal failure. The Attorney General submits that the Act does not pertain to private communication between individuals, but rather, deals with "cyber messages or public communications". With respect, I find that the Act restricts both public and private communications. Furthermore, the Act provides no defences, and proof of harm is not required. These factors all culminate in a legislative scheme that infringes on s. 2(b) of the Charter much more than is necessary to meet the legislative objectives. The procedural safeguards, such as automatic review by this Court and the respondent's right to request a hearing, do nothing to address the fact that the definition of cyberbullying is far too broad, even if a requirement for malice was read in. Moir J.'s comments in Self supra at para. 25, are instructive:

The next thing to note is the absence of conditions or qualifications ordinarily part of the meaning of bullying. Truth does not appear to matter. Motive does not appear to matter. Repetition or continuation might ("repeated or with continuing effect") or might not ("typically") matter.

[166] In conclusion, the Cyber-safety Act fails the "minimum impairment" branch of the Oakes test.
Emphasis added

The Court also found that the Act fails on the final proportionality test:

[174] The Attorney General submits that the Act strikes an appropriate balance because it only restricts expression that is malicious, and therefore low-value. The
Respondent says this Court must instead balance an individual's right to express any sort of speech captured in the definition of "cyberbullying" against the objectives of the Act. The Respondent says the Act prevents an individual from telling the truth if it hurts another person's feelings or harms their self-esteem, and it does not provide any defences. The Act does not accommodate expression that relates to individual self-fulfillment, truth-finding or political discourse. The Respondent submits that the Act can therefore "limit speech that cuts to the core of Charter values". The Respondent distinguishes Lucas on the basis that the libel provisions in the Criminal Code were upheld because they prohibit only falsehoods that are known by the defendant to be false.

[175] It is clear that many types of expression that go to the core of freedom of expression values might be caught in the definition of cyberbullying. These deleterious effects have not been outweighed by the presumed salutary effects.

In the end, the Court found that the Cyber-safety Act offends sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified.

Interestingly, the Attorney General asked that if the Act were declared to be unconstitutional, the Court should suspend the declaration of invalidity so that the legislature could go back to the drawing board. In court, we agreed that it could be suspended with respect to anyone but my client. The Court declared the entire Act to be unconstitutional but refused to suspend the order:

[220] Both parties confined their submissions to the definition of cyberbullying and Part I of the Act. I have identified a number of problems with both components. The remaining parts of the Act cannot survive on their own. They are inextricably connected to the offending provisions, in particular the definition of cyberbullying. Severance would not be appropriate. The Act being over-inclusive rather than underinclusive, reading in also would not be an appropriate remedy. I have already explained why reading in a requirement for malice is not, in my view, appropriate or sufficient. The Act must be struck down in its entirety. The Attorney General has not persuaded me that a temporary suspension is warranted. To temporarily suspend the declaration of validity would be to condone further infringements of Charter protected rights and freedoms. Further, the fact that the Act was enacted to fill a "gap" in the legislation does not mean that victims of cyberbullying will be completely without redress in the time it takes to enact new cyberbullying legislation. They will have the usual albeit imperfect civil and criminal avenues available to them.
Emphasis added

So far, the government of Nova Scotia has not commented on the case and it remains to be seen whether they will appeal the case or go back to the drawing board, or both.

If they do go back to the drawing board, I really hope they will do it with very careful deliberation and full consultation with experts. But if nothing else, they have a good example of how not to do it.

Presentation: Use of drones in journalism & media

I had the great pleasure of speaking at the annual conference of the Canadian Media Lawyers Association's annual meeting in Toronto on the topic of legal issues related to the use of drones by the media and in journalism in Canada.

For anyone who may be interested, here's the presentation:

Nova Scotia's Cyber-safety Act (hopefully) heading for a Charter challenge

A case I am involved with is hopefully heading to argument on Friday in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on whether the province's Cyber-safety Act goes too far in infringing Charter protected speech. There has been a lot of interest in the statute since the former NDP government jammed it through the legislature in the wake of the tragic death of Rehtaeh Parsons. It's my opinion that rather than address a dramatic failing on the part of the police and prosecution service (which the government would have to admit occurred on its watch), the government pulled out the old "there wasn't a law! we need a new law!". The result was a hastily assembled statute, which is more fully described elsewhere on this blog.

The case has been bifurcated, so that on Friday there will be a decision on whether, in the view of the judge, my client should be subject to a "cybersafety protection order" under the Act. Depending on the outcome of that decision, we will argue that the Court should consider the Charter and our arguments that the Cyber-safety Act violates Section 2(b) of the Charter and cannot be saved by Section 1 as a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. But even if the judge determines that he does not have to consider the Charter, I am sure that this dumpster fire of a statute will face Charter scrutiny sometime soon.

The Halifax Chronicle Herald did a big piece on the story (much larger than I had expected) in the weekend edition of the paper and there's been a lot of other media attention as well, including this interview on CTV Atlantic which summarizes my view.

Here's the Herald article:

Lawyer set to launch charter case against law inspired by Rehtaeh Parsons | The Chronicle Herald

A law inspired by the death of Rehtaeh Parsons could face its first court challenge next week when a Halifax lawyer will attempt to argue it violates charter rights regarding freedom of expression.

The Cyber-safety Act was brought in by the former NDP government in response to a wave of public criticism of the way Rehtaeh’s case was handled. The 17-year-old girl died after attempting suicide in 2013. She accused several boys of raping her while she was drunk and a photo of the alleged sexual assault was widely circulated among her peers.

Within weeks of Rehtaeh’s death, former justice minister Ross Landry was in a Halifax high school unveiling the new legislation. Critics, Halifax lawyer and privacy expert David Fraser being one of the most vocal, say the government’s actions were too fast, too sweeping and did not consider the full implications of such a bill.

Cyberbullying is a real problem, said Fraser, but his argument goes beyond that.

“The issue is, how do you define it and how do you define it in a way that takes into account the fact that people should have freedom of expression to, particularly, speak about matters of public interest?” said the partner with McInnes Cooper.

On Friday, Fraser and his client, Robert Snell, will learn from a judge whether Snell did in fact cyberbully a former business partner as defined by the province’s Cyber-safety Act. Snell had a protection order placed on him by the courts as a result of statements he made online. The order prevents Snell from communicating with Giles Crouch or discussing their disagreement.

Following the judge’s decision, Fraser hopes he will be able to begin arguing that the law breaches Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The two issues were split following an argument from the attorney general. The government’s view is if the judge finds Snell’s actions were not cyberbullying, there is no reason to address the charter aspect.

Regardless, Fraser is going to court prepared to begin the charter fight.

Laws need to be more nuanced when they approach values protected by the charter, said Fraser. It’s why injecting more context is so important, he said. The legislation doesn’t take into account, for example, the difference between criticism of a public official and hurtful comments directed at a young or vulnerable person, said Fraser.

“I should be able to go on social media and, let’s say, call the premier of a province a liar for not keeping a campaign promise. Now, that may hurt his feelings, may harm his self-esteem, and so that would be cyberbullying. We need to have a way of taking those sort of things into account.”

Fraser isn’t the only person who has issues with the law.

Cara Faith Zwibel at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said she’s not sure the law is even necessary.

“My inclination would be to take a really hard look at what already exists out there to address these problems, and I think the fact is that there is quite a lot out there already that can; it’s a matter of the will to actually use those tools.”

The serious and damaging kind of cyberbullying could be addressed through existing elements of the Criminal Code that handle harassment, as well as defamation law when the matter concerns reputation, said Zwibel. She shares Fraser’s view that the breadth of the definition of cyberbullying goes too far and also has concerns about the protection orders the CyberSCAN unit can impose, which can include bans on using electronic communication.

“I don’t think it’s a matter of just tweaking the existing legislation,” Zwibel said. “I don’t think there’s been a compelling case made for why it’s necessary.”

The man who has become a leading expert on cyberbullying understands the concerns of Fraser and Zwibel, but Wayne MacKay said there are several broad questions that must be weighed.

A professor at Dalhousie University’s law school, MacKay was the lead on the province’s cyberbullying task force. He said the former government adopted a similar broad definition as was laid out in the task force’s final report. MacKay was not consulted in the drafting of the legislation.

“There’s no question that it does limit freedom of speech, as does hate speech,” he said. “The question is often whether or not it is a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.”

The main debate will be whether the benefits of the law outweigh the invasions of rights for those who want to exercise free speech, MacKay said. It’s not an easy debate, but he thinks there is reason to believe this is reasonable.

“I think the problem of cyberbullying is a very large and significant one.”

If there is to be a change, MacKay hopes it would be to adjust the definition of cyberbullying rather than just repealing the law.

“To eliminate the law or strike the whole thing down would be quite unfortunate.”

One of the problems with attempting to address the issue through other avenues, said MacKay, is those options aren’t as well known as the new legislation. More importantly, he said, CyberSCAN is a specialized agency focused only on these kind of matters. The unit has a range of remedies at its disposal, from informal meetings with involved parties all the way up to passing the matter on to police for crim-inal charges.

“I think there really isn’t another vehicle at the moment that offers that whole range of possible remedies.”

Although there may be room for clarification and improvement with the legislation, MacKay said judges are developing a fair degree of expertise in “drawing between what is acceptable free speech” and things that aren’t. They can’t ignore the legislation, but they can interpret it and, in so doing, judges can provide the necessary nuance, said MacKay.

The government will only become involved in the matter if the discussion of a charter challenge proceeds.

Provincial officials would not comment outside of the court proceedings. An email from a Justice Department spokesman said the province believes the act is constitutional. In a brief filed with the court, the government notes that “should the protection order be revoked by this court, such a result would remove the need to review the legislation under the charter as the matter would become moot.”

“To argue issues unnecessarily wastes precious judicial resources, does not advance the administration of justice and spends counsel’s time incurring unnecessary costs.”

Fraser, obviously, doesn’t see things that way. Regardless of how the judge rules in the matter of his client, the larger issue of constitutionality needs to be addressed, he said.

“I recognize we need to protect people, particularly vulnerable people, but it should not be at the expense of charter-protected speech. There needs to be a balance, and I don’t see any of that in the legislation as it exists.”

Presentation: Cyber-bullying, the law and the courts (and freedom of expression)

I was invited to speak to journalism students at the University of King's College about Cyber-bullying, the law, freedom of expression and the courts. This is the second year I've been asked to give such a presentation and I focused on the problems created by laws that are drafted and passed during very emotional times. The Nova Scotia Cyber-safety Act is a perfect example of such a law: When it was introduced, I was quoted in the media as saying it was likely unconstitutional as an unreasonable infringement on our Charter rights to freedom of expression. The Premier of the province at the time, Darryl Dexter, responded to my critique by saying that he could not disagree with me more. Since that quote hurt my feelings and was published online, it fit within the grossly overbroad definition of cyberbullying contained in the statute he was responsible for. Which only just proves my point, since an honest opinion on a matter of public interest (particularly legislation) should never be made unlawful in our free and democratic society.

In any event, it was a pleasure to give the presentation and to speak with the very engaged students. In case the materials are of interest, here is the presentation:

Cyberbullying legislation and freedom of expression

I was invited to lead a discussion at the Canadian Centre for Ethics and Public Affairs on Nova Scotia's cyberbullying legislation and its impact on freedom of expression. It was part of their "everyday ethics" series. Though it was much more of a discussion than a presentation with powerpoint, did did prepare the below presentation which may be of interest to readers of this blog. Feel free to share it.