Digital Words – Real Damages: Defamation in the Age of Instagram

02/20/24 • 29 min

Gavin and Stephen discuss a defamation case involving a social media influencer in Edmonton, Alberta. The influencer, Rosemary, had a falling out with a couple, leading to a series of defamatory posts about them on her Instagram account. The court found in favour of the couple, awarding the female plaintiff $50,000 and the male plaintiff $75,000.
This highlights the importance of being careful about what you post on social media, as defamation can lead to significant legal consequences. They also discuss the challenges of applying old defamation laws to new technology and the changing nature of media.
Listen For
1:54 There’s Been a Seismic Shift in Defamation Law Due to Social Media
3:04 Challenges in Applying Traditional Law to New Technology
4:56 The Role of Social Media Influencers in Defamation
11:08 The Difficulty of Enforcing Defamation Judgements

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Send us a text

Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Previous Episode

The Federal Court’s Verdict on the Use of the Emergencies Act

Send us a text

In this episode Gavin and Stephen discuss the recent decision by the federal court on the challenge to the constitutionality and legality of the federal government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to the trucker convoy protest in Canada.
They argue the protest was non-violent and did not pose a threat to the security of Canada, making the use of the Emergencies Act unreasonable and ultra vires of the federal government. They also express concern about the potential for damages to be awarded to those who were unlawfully injured by the misuse of the statute, which could result in significant costs for Canadian taxpayers.
No doubt where this one’s headed... the Supreme Court of Canada.
Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Next Episode

Confidentiality vs. Transparency: The Supreme Court’s Stand on Mandate Letters

Send us a text

The Supreme Court of Canada has really stirred the pot this time. The issue is whether mandate letters should be subject to disclosure. Mandate letters are instructions or views given to cabinet ministers by the leader of a government.
Sparked by CBC News' request for one collection of letters from 2018, the legal battle questioned their confidentiality. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings, emphasizing the importance of cabinet confidentiality for democracy and effective governance.
Gavin and Stephen Thiele explore the decision's implications, arguing it protects necessary government deliberation zones, akin to privacy in other professional realms. They critique the media's and opposition's transparency demands, suggesting such pressures could undermine responsible government by stifling free debate and decision-making within the cabinet.
Listen For:
1:13 The Impact on Democracy and Governance
6:34 Legal and Constitutional Framework
11:36 Media’s Role and Responsibility
17:07 Implications for Legal Scholarship
Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email

Beneath the Law - Digital Words – Real Damages: Defamation in the Age of Instagram

Transcript

Stephen Thiele (00:00):

And they also got involved in restraining orders against one another. There was litigation over the borrowed clothing. A lawsuit was started there to have that clothing returned. What was it? $8,500 worth of closing. That was borrowed.

Gavin Tighe (