Client Update: Nova Scotia New tort of cyberbullying
NEW TORT OF CYBERBULLYING
On May 10, 2013 the Nova Scotia legislature passed the Cyber-safety Act (Bill 61). When this bill comes into force, it will give rise to a new tort of cyberbullying that creates liability for the tortfeasor and potentially for his or her parent(s) if the tortfeasor is under the age of 19.
TORT OF CYBERBULLYING
Cyberbullying is defined in the Act as:
any electronic communication through the use of technology including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, computers, other electronic devices, social networks, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and electronic mail, typically repeated or with continuing effect, 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.
A person who subjects another person to cyberbullying commits the tort and can be liable for general, special, aggravated and punitive damages and be subject to an injunction.
While the Act does not provide any guidance as to the range of damages that may be awarded, it does allow for the court to consider any particular vulnerabilities of the plaintiff, all aspects of the conduct of the defendant and the nature of any existing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant when assessing damages.
PARENTAL LIABILITY
If the person committing the tort of cyberbullying is under the age of 19, his or her parent(s) or guardian(s) will be jointly and severally liable, unless they can convince the court that they:
a.) Were exercising reasonable supervision over the child at the time the child engaged in the activity that caused the loss or damage; and
b.) Made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage the child from engaging in the kind of activity that resulted in the loss or damage.
Factors the court will consider in making this assessment include:
- The age of the child;
- The prior conduct of the child;
- The physical and mental capacity of the child, including any psychological or other medical disorders of the child;
- Whether the child used an electronic device supplied by the parent, for the activity;
- Any conditions imposed by the parent on the use by the child of an electronic device;
- Whether the child was under the direct supervision of the parent at the time when he or she engaged in the activity; and
- Whether the parent acted unreasonably in failing to make reasonable arrangements for the supervision of the defendant.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU
The Cyber-safety Act has wide-ranging implications. First and foremost, it creates a new tort. It also presumes a form of vicarious liability for parents of cyberbulliers under the age of 19, however, this is rebuttable. Finally, other forms of vicarious liability are not precluded. For example, an employer could be vicariously liability for an employee who engages in cyberbullying in the workplace.
The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, visit our Insurance group. For more on our firm see www.stewartmckelvey.com.
Archive
Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…
Read MoreJonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…
Read MoreBruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…
Read More