• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
    Copyright Reform
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Crookes v Newton: SCC Holds That Hyperlinking Was Not Defamatory

October 19, 2011 by Pauline Wong

Pauline Wong is the Assistant Director of IP Osgoode.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Crookes v Newton, which considers whether the author of a website article can be liable for defamation by hyperlinking to defamatory material on the Internet.

The Court dismissed the appeal and found Newton not liable for defamation.  Justice Abella, writing for a majority of six, held that hyperlinks are content neutral references and do not constitute a publication.  Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Fish co-authored reasons agreeing substantially with the majority, but found that a hyperlink should constitute publication if, read contextually, the text that includes the hyperlink constitutes adoption or endorsement of the specific content it links to.  Justice Deschamps agreed in the result, but gave significantly different reasons.  Deschamps outlined a comprehensive test for defamation by hyperlinking, found that at least one of the impugned hyperlinks was a deliberate act constituting a publication of defamatory content, but found insufficient evidence that the defamatory content was received by a third person.

This decision could have implications for copyright law and whether hyperlinking could be considered a publication or reproduction.

We are very pleased that, early next week, we will be publishing feature posts by counsel who appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada for the parties.  Follow us on Twitter or check back in next week.  If you would like to receive IPilogue content via email, then please subscribe to the IPIGRAM, our weekly e-newsletter, via the form on our home page (iposgoode.ca) or by emailing us at iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Posted in defamation, Feature Post, Internet, Supreme Court of Canada

3 Responses to “Crookes v Newton: SCC Holds That Hyperlinking Was Not Defamatory”

  1. Online Global Week in Review 21 Oct 2011 from IP Think Tank, on October 21, 2011 at 6:11 am Said:

    […] Supreme Court of Canada: Hyperlinking is not publication: Crookes v. Newton (Excess Copyright) (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) (IP Osgoode) […]

  2. China Update 22 October 2011 from IP Think Tank / 中国知识产权动向,2011年10月22日 来自IP Think Tank, on October 22, 2011 at 4:00 am Said:

    […] Supreme Court of Canada: Hyperlinking is not publication: Crookes v. Newton / 加拿大高等法院在Crookes诉Newton一案中认为,发布超连接并非出版 (Excess Copyright) (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) (IP Osgoode) […]

  3. Robert Kasting, on October 23, 2011 at 6:46 pm Said:

    As counsel for Mr. Crookes, I was asked to provide some brief comments on the decision. Here they are:

    1. The large issue at bar was the extent to which a website owner should be responsible for what appears on his website. The court has decided that a website owner is not legally responsible for the defamatory hyperlinks which he has voluntarily added to his site and which he has refused to take down, when requested. The court decided that in the balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation, the balance, in this set of circumstances, should be weighed in favour of freedom of expression.

    2. As an advocate, it is not my place to provide a technical critique of the three sets of reasons. As an advocate, it is my role to accept what has been said and see what opportunities and barriers are created by this judgment in future cases where I may act as counsel. Nine intelligent jurists thought deeply about this unique issue and provided a response which will be woven into the legal fabric.

    3. The approach to the problem, however, was far from unanimous. There were 3 separate opinions from the court–a 6 judge opinion, a 2 judge opinion and a one judge opinion. Unfortunately, none of the judges shared the Appellant’s approach to the problem. At the time the judgment was handed down, 2 of the 6 judges who rendered the majority opinion were no longer members of the court, meaning that the court, as presently constituted, decided 4/2/1. Both the 6 judge opinion and the 2 judge opinion suggested that they would likely expect to review the judgment in the future, given technological change and, it can be inferred, a different fact pattern. This lack of unanimity and the suggestion of further development limits the strength of the judgment. It appears inevitable that in the future, maybe a year or two, maybe a decade or two, the court will be looking at a similar question to see whether the balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation in Crookes v. Newton is the correct one.

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« European Libraries And Copyright Owners Reach Understanding On Out-Of-Commerce Works | IP Osgoode Goes To Ottawa To Host International Conference On Copyright Law »

Career Opportunities
Intellectual Property Society of Osgoode (IPSO)
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPOsgoode

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Gerard Sinanan on Picture This: Consent and Control over Your Image
  • William Foster on Build-Up, Scale Up: Fostering Innovation in Canada
  • Andrea Uetrecht on Broken Promises: Utility Standards and Patent Applications in Canada
  • Nazli Jelveh on Is Google “Feeling Lucky” at the Supreme Court?
  • Denver Bandstra on Legal Battle Over Monkey’s Selfie Leads to Settlement
  • William Chalmers on Legal Battle Over Monkey’s Selfie Leads to Settlement
  • Isabella Martinez on Intellectual Property Strategy For Artificial Intelligence
  • Andrew M on “Shoe-in” for Converse? Iconic Sneaker Company puts Foot Down and Sues for Trademark Infringement
  • Sebastian Beck-watt on Just Laugh It Off: Trademark Parody and the Expansion of User Rights
  • Lou on Apotex Successfully Invalidates Patent on Nexium
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Charlene Lindsay: Building Bridges and Indigenous Engagement through @SDNRCG
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Lara Hammoud: Improving Access to Justice with @LawyerlyCanada
  • #WorldIPDay Spotlight on Roya Mahboob: Empowering and Educating Girls and Women in Developing Countries through the @DigitalCitizenF
  • IP Osgoode Celebrates #WorldIPDay with a Q&A Series Featuring Women Entrepreneurs from the Innovation Clinic
  • Breaking Up With Big Tech?
  • Cockatoos, Fireworks, and More: Osgoode Competes at the 16th Annual Oxford International IP Moot
  • Robotic Trolls
  • The Toronto Housing Market Just Got Crazier!
  • DMCA Used to Enforce Moral Rights in Video Games
  • Hollywood Lawsuit May Have Blockbuster Results
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (13)
  • Announcements (126)
  • Arbitration (1)
  • Arts (3)
  • Blogs (213)
  • Book Review (8)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (15)
  • Canadian Telecom Summit 2017 (5)
  • Cloud Services (17)
  • Commercialization (108)
  • Competition (34)
  • Competition Law (26)
  • Contracts (78)
  • copyright reform (201)
  • Crowdfunding (1)
  • Cybersecurity (13)
  • defamation (20)
  • Design (24)
  • Development (13)
  • European Union (82)
  • events (112)
  • Fashion Industry (34)
  • Feature Post (286)
  • Financial (7)
  • Freedom of Speech (34)
  • Freedom of the Press (20)
  • Gaming (25)
  • General (162)
  • Human Rights (17)
  • Image (11)
  • Innovation (220)
  • Internet (348)
  • IP (1,645)
    • Copyright (815)
      • CD Levy (11)
      • Digital Downloads (87)
      • Digital Libraries (10)
      • Digital Locks (42)
      • Fair Dealing (117)
        • Parody (3)
        • Satire (2)
      • Infringement (224)
      • Internet Sharing (116)
      • Literary Works (77)
      • Moral Rights (23)
      • Movies (68)
      • Music Industry (133)
      • Originality (51)
      • Ownership (150)
        • Licensees (55)
      • Plagiarism (1)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (28)
      • Subsidiary Rights (7)
    • IP Reform (97)
    • Patents (476)
      • Access to Medicines (29)
      • Cross Border Issues (55)
      • Electronic Processes (26)
      • Infringement (94)
      • Patent Practice (36)
      • Patent Trolls (28)
      • Patentability (132)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (101)
    • Trademarks (314)
      • Domain Names (50)
      • Famous Marks (26)
      • Official Marks (13)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (16)
  • IP Course Topic (18)
  • IP Innovation Clinic (3)
  • IP Intensive (121)
  • IP Litigation Practice (20)
  • IP Osgoode Speaks Series (17)
  • Jurisdiction (352)
    • Canada (177)
    • China (4)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (5)
    • UK (66)
    • US (169)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (23)
  • Links (3)
  • Literature (2)
  • MediaLaws (44)
  • Music Industry (106)
  • Open-Source (21)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (15)
  • Patents Course Topic (30)
  • Privacy (238)
    • Electronic Databases (50)
    • Human Rights Issues (39)
    • Identity Theft (18)
  • Regulatory Policy (112)
  • Reputation Management (8)
  • Satire (1)
  • Smartphones (28)
  • Social Justice (6)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (50)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (55)
  • Taxation (1)
  • Tech Transfer (36)
  • Technology (345)
  • Telecommunications (115)
  • Trade Secrets (11)
  • UK (30)
  • Uncategorized (140)
  • US-Canada Relations (13)
  • WIPO (30)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736