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
Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…
Read MoreJonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…
Read MoreRick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…
Read MoreJonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read More