Source: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7963/index.do?iframe=true
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:26:17+00:00

Document:
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
2010: December 7; 2011: October 19.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Torts — Libel and slander — Publication — Internet — Defendant creating hyperlinks to allegedly defamatory articles — Whether hyperlinking, in and of itself, constitutes publication.
Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other acts of “publication”. Hyperlinks and references both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. They both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content-neutral. Furthermore, inserting a hyperlink into a text gives the author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Fish J.: The reasons of the majority are agreed with substantially. However, 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. A mere general reference to a Web site is not enough to find publication.
In the context of Internet hyperlinks, a simple reference, absent evidence that someone actually viewed and understood the defamatory information to which it directs third parties, is not publication of that content. In order to satisfy the requirements of the first component of publication, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the hyperlinker performed a deliberate act that made defamatory information readily available to a third party in a comprehensible form. An act is deliberate if the defendant played more than a passive instrumental role in making the information available. In determining whether hyperlinked information is readily available, a court should consider a number of factors, including whether the hyperlink is user-activated or automatic, whether it is a shallow or a deep link, and whether the linked information is available to the general public (as opposed to being restricted). Any matter that has a bearing on the ease with which the referenced information could be accessed will be relevant to the inquiry.
Here, N acted as more than a mere conduit in making the hyperlinked information available. His action was deliberate. However, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the first, shallow hyperlink made the defamatory content readily available. The various articles were not placed on the other site’s home page and they had separate addresses. The fact that the reader had to take further action in order to find the defamatory material constituted a meaningful barrier to the receipt, by a third party, of the linked information. The second, deep hyperlink, however, did make the content readily available. All the reader had to do to gain access to the article was to click on the link, which does not constitute a barrier to the availability of the material. Thus, C has satisfied the requirements of the first component of publication on a balance of probabilities where this link is concerned. However, the nature of N’s article, the way the various links were presented and the number of hits on the article do not support an inference that the allegedly defamatory information was brought to the knowledge of some third person. The defamation action with respect to either of the impugned hyperlinks cannot succeed.
Applied: McNichol v. Grandy,  S.C.R. 696; approved: Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398, 42 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1; referred to: Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61,  3 S.C.R. 640; Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co.,  S.C.R. 297; Stanley v. Shaw, 2006 BCCA 467, 231 B.C.A.C. 186; Hiltz and Seamone Co. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1997), 164 N.S.R. (2d) 161, aff’d in part (1999), 173 N.S.R. (2d) 341; “Truth” (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Holloway,  1 W.L.R. 997; Lambert v. Thomson,  O.R. 341; Pullman v. Walter Hill & Co.,  1 Q.B. 524; R. v. Clerk (1728), 1 Barn. K.B. 304, 94 E.R. 207; Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234; Buchanan v. Jennings,  UKPC 36,  1 A.C. 115; Polson v. Davis, 635 F.Supp. 1130 (1986), aff’d 895 F.2d 705 (1990); Crain v. Lightner, 364 S.E.2d 778 (1987); Spike v. Golding (1895), 27 N.S.R. 370; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45,  2 S.C.R. 427; Vizetelly v. Mudie’s Select Library, Ltd.,  2 Q.B. 170; Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. W. H. Smith and Son Ltd. (1934), 150 L.T. 211; Bunt v. Tilley,  EWHC 407,  3 All E.R. 336; Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corpn.,  EWHC 1765,  1 W.L.R. 1743; Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638 (1946); MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1952); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (1997); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (2006); Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (2008); Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34,  2 S.C.R. 801; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto,  2 S.C.R. 1130; WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40,  2 S.C.R. 420; Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997); Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416; Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd.,  3 S.C.R. 3; Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper, Ltd.,  A.C. 116; Butler v. Southam Inc., 2001 NSCA 121, 197 N.S.R. (2d) 97; Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., 2011 SCC 9,  1 S.C.R. 214.
Applied: McNichol v. Grandy,  S.C.R. 696; referred to: WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40,  2 S.C.R. 420; Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61,  3 S.C.R. 640; Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co.,  S.C.R. 297; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto,  2 S.C.R. 1130; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45,  2 S.C.R. 427; Gambrill v. Schooley, 93 Md. 48 (1901); Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34,  2 S.C.R. 801; Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398, 42 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1; MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1952); Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638 (1946); Lambert v. Thomson,  O.R. 341; Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd.,  3 S.C.R. 3; Day v. Bream (1837), 2 M. & Rob. 54, 174 E.R. 212; R. v. Clerk (1728), 1 Barn. K.B. 304, 94 E.R. 207; Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd.,  4 All E.R. 342; Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick,  HCA 56, 210 C.L.R. 575; Stanley v. Shaw, 2006 BCCA 467, 231 B.C.A.C. 186; Smith v. Matsqui (Dist.) (1986), 4 B.C.L.R. (2d) 342; Wilson v. Meyer, 126 P.3d 276 (2005); Pond v. General Electric Co., 256 F.2d 824 (1958); Scott v. Hull, 259 N.E.2d 160 (1970); Byrne v. Deane,  1 K.B. 818; Hellar v. Bianco, 244 P.2d 757 (1952); Tacket v. General Motors Corp., 836 F.2d 1042 (1987); Urbanchich v. Drummoyne Municipal Council (1991), Aust. Torts Rep. ¶81-127; Frawley v. State of New South Wales,  NSWSC 1379 (AustLII); Underhill v. Corser,  EWHC 1195 (BAILII); Bunt v. Tilley,  EWHC 407,  3 All E.R. 336; Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corpn.,  EWHC 1765,  1 W.L.R. 1743; Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (1997); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (2006); Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (2008); Islam Expo Ltd. v. The Spectator (1828) Ltd.,  EWHC 2011 (BAILII); Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL,  UKHL 44,  1 A.C. 359.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §230 (1996).
Balkin, Jack M. “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age” (2009), 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 427.
Brown, Raymond E. Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States, vols. 1 and 2, 2nd ed. Toronto: Carswell, 1994 (loose-leaf updated 2011, release 3).
Dalal, Anjali. “Protecting Hyperlinks and Preserving First Amendment Values on the Internet” (2011), 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1017.
Klar, Lewis N. Tort Law, 4th ed. Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2008.
Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett. “Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace” (2000), 49 Duke L.J. 855.
William C. McDowell, Marguerite F. Ethier and Naomi D. Loewith, for the intervener NetCoalition.
Roy W. Millen, for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
 Abella J. — To succeed in an action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that the defamatory words were published, that is, that they were “communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff” (Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61,  3 S.C.R. 640, at para. 28).
Under new developments, . . . I’ve just met Michael Pilling, who runs OpenPolitics.ca. Based in Toronto, he, too, is being sued for defamation. This time by politician Wayne Crookes.
 OpenPolitics.ca was hyperlinked to the Open Politics website where several articles were posted and were said by Mr. Crookes to be defamatory. Wayne Crookes was hyperlinked to an allegedly defamatory article called “Wayne Crookes”, published anonymously on the website www.USGovernetics.com.
 At trial, Kelleher J. concluded that the mere creation of a hyperlink in a website does not lead to a presumption that someone actually used the hyperlink to access the impugned words (2008 BCSC 1424, 88 B.C.L.R. (4th) 395). He agreed with Mr. Newton’s submission that hyperlinks were analogous to footnotes since they only refer to another source without repeating it. Since there was no repetition, there was no publication. And in the absence of evidence that anyone other than Mr. Crookes used the links and read the words to which they linked, there could not be a finding of publication.
There are no limitations on the manner in which defamatory matter may be published. Any act which has the effect of transferring the defamatory information to a third person constitutes a publication.
See also Hiltz and Seamone Co. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1997), 164 N.S.R. (2d) 161 (S.C.), at para. 21, aff’d in part (1999), 173 N.S.R. (2d) 341 (C.A.); Grant, at para. 119; “Truth” (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Holloway,  1 W.L.R. 997 (P.C.); Lambert v. Thomson,  O.R. 341 (C.A.), per Rowell C.J.O.; Pullman v. Walter Hill & Co.,  1 Q.B. 524 (C.A.), at p. 527, per Lord Esher M.R.
 Under this sole disseminator/sole reader paradigm, the breadth of activity captured by the traditional publication rule is vast. In R. v. Clerk (1728), 1 Barn. K.B. 304, 94 E.R. 207, for example, a printer’s servant, whose only role in an act of publication was to “clap down” the printing press, was found responsible for the libels contained in that publication, despite the fact that he was not aware of the contents (p. 207). In Hird v. Wood (1894), 38 S.J. 234 (C.A.), pointing at a sign displaying defamatory words was held to be evidence of publication. Other cases have also held that acts merely facilitating communication can amount to publication: see, e.g., Buchanan v. Jennings,  UKPC 36,  1 A.C. 115; Polson v. Davis, 635 F.Supp. 1130 (D. Kan. 1986), aff’d 895 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1990); Crain v. Lightner, 364 S.E.2d 778 (W. Va. 1987), at p. 785; and Spike v. Golding (1895), 27 N.S.R. 370 (S.C. in banco). And in McNichol v. Grandy, the defendant was found to be liable when he raised his voice and made defamatory statements that were overheard by someone in another room.
 Defendants obtained some relief from the rule’s significant breadth with the development of the “innocent dissemination” defence, which protects “those who play a secondary role in the distribution system, such as news agents, booksellers, and libraries”: Allen M. Linden and Bruce Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law (8th ed. 2006), at pp. 783-84; see also Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45,  2 S.C.R. 427 (“SOCAN”), at para. 89; Philip H. Osborne, The Law of Torts (4th ed. 2011), at p. 411. Such “subordinate distributors” may escape liability by showing that they “have no actual knowledge of an alleged libel, are aware of no circumstances to put them on notice to suspect a libel, and committed no negligence in failing to find out about the libel” (SOCAN, at para. 89; Vizetelly v. Mudie’s Select Library, Ltd.,  2 Q.B. 170 (C.A.), at p. 180; Brown, at para. 7.12(6)(c); and also Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. W. H. Smith and Son Ltd. (1934), 150 L.T. 211 (C.A.), at pp. 212-14).
 Recently, jurisprudence has emerged suggesting that some acts are so passive that they should not be held to be publication. In Bunt v. Tilley,  EWHC 407,  3 All E.R. 336 (Q.B.), considering the potential liability of an Internet service provider, the court held that in order to hold someone liable as a publisher, “[i]t is not enough that a person merely plays a passive instrumental role in the process”; there must be “knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words” (para. 23 (emphasis in original); see also Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corpn.,  EWHC 1765,  1 W.L.R. 1743 (Q.B.)).
 Acknowledging these developments, the question on this appeal is whether a simple reference — like a hyperlink — to defamatory information is the type of act that can constitute publication. Some helpful guidance on this point is available in two American cases. In Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638 (1946), the New York Court of Appeals decided that a statement saying “For more details about [the plaintiff], see the Washington News Letter in The American Hebrew, May 12, 1944” (p. 639) was not a republication of the May 12 libel.
 These cases were relied on in Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398, 42 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1, where the plaintiff alleged that, by mentioning the Internet address of an online discussion forum, the publisher of a newsletter was responsible for republishing defamatory comments published on that site. Relying on MacFadden and Klein for the proposition that “reference to an article containing defamatory comment without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory comment” (para. 12), Hall J.A. held that there was no publication.
 These features — that a person who refers to other content generally does not participate in its creation or development — serve to insulate from liability those involved in Internet communications in the United States: see Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §230 (1996); see also Jack M. Balkin, “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age” (2009), 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 427, at pp. 433-34; Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006); Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008).
 Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content-neutral — it expresses no opinion, nor does it have any control over, the content to which it refers.
 Interpreting the publication rule to exclude mere references not only accords with a more sophisticated appreciation of Charter values, but also with the dramatic transformation in the technology of communications. See June Ross, “The Common Law of Defamation Fails to Enter the Age of the Charter” (1996), 35 Alta. L. Rev. 117; see also Jeremy Streeter, “The ‘Deception Exception’: A New Approach to Section 2(b) Values and Its Impact on Defamation Law” (2003), 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 79; Denis W. Boivin, “Accommodating Freedom of Expression and Reputation in the Common Law of Defamation” (1996-1997), 22 Queen’s L.J. 229; Lewis N. Klar, Tort Law (4th ed. 2008), at pp. 746-47; Robert Danay, “The Medium is not the Message: Reconciling Reputation and Free Expression in Cases of Internet Defamation” (2010), 56 McGill L.J. 1; the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, “Recent Developments Concerning Freedom of Speech and Privacy in the Context of Global Communications Technology” (1999), 48 U.N.B.L.J. 189; Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), at p. 870.
 Nothing on Mr. Newton’s page is itself alleged to be defamatory. The impugned conduct in this case is Mr. Newton’s insertion of hyperlinks on his webpage. Mr. Crookes’ argument is that by linking to webpages and websites containing allegedly defamatory content, Mr. Newton has published that defamatory content. Since in my view the use of a hyperlink cannot, by itself, amount to publication even if the hyperlink is followed and the defamatory content is accessed, Mr. Crookes’ action against Mr. Newton cannot succeed. Moreover, even if Mr. Crookes had alleged that Mr. Newton should be understood, in context, to have expressed defamatory meaning, I would agree with the trial judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal that the statements containing the impugned hyperlinks on Mr. Newton’s page could not be understood, even in context with the hyperlinked documents, to express any opinion — defamatory or otherwise — on Mr. Crookes or the hyperlinked content.
 The Chief Justice and Fish J. — We have read the reasons of Deschamps J. and Abella J. While we agree in large part with the reasons of Abella J., we respectfully propose a different formulation of the test for when a hyperlink reference in a text constitutes publication of defamatory matter to which it links.
 The question, in legal terms, is when inclusion of a hyperlink in a text constitutes publication of a defamation in the hyperlinked material. Abella J. states that “a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as ‘publication’ of the content to which it refers” (para. 14). As justification, she notes that the hyperlinker has no control over the content referred to; the hyperlinker is not the creator of the content, and the content of the page linked to may change at any time (paras. 26-27). A hyperlink, therefore, is a reference and references are by definition “content-neutral” (para. 30).
 It is true that the traditional publication rule does not require the publisher to approve of the material published; he or she must merely communicate that material to a third party. However, the proposed adoption or endorsement standard for references is conceptually different. A mere reference without any adoption or endorsement remains that — a content-neutral reference. Adoption or endorsement of the content accessible by a link in the text can be understood to actually incorporate the defamatory content into the text. Thus, the content of the text comes to include the defamatory content accessed via hyperlink. The hyperlink, combined with the surrounding words and context, ceases to be a mere reference and the content to which it refers becomes part of the published text itself.
 Deschamps J. — This appeal offers yet another opportunity for the Court to consider the proper balance in the common law of defamation between the protection of reputation and the promotion of freedom of expression. In WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40,  2 S.C.R. 420, and Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61,  3 S.C.R. 640, the Court took incremental steps to improve this balance by recognizing and modernizing defences to liability for defamation. In the instant case, the Court must determine whether, notwithstanding these defences, the scope of conduct that may attract prima facie liability for defamation is itself too broad and in need of adjustment to further promote freedom of expression.
 Proof of publication is necessary in order to establish liability for defamation. “Publication” has an established meaning in the law of defamation. It refers to the communication of defamatory information in such a way that it is “made known to a third party”: Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co.,  S.C.R. 297, at p. 299. Professor Brown explains that “[i]t is a bilateral act by which the publisher makes available to a reader, listener or observer in a comprehensible form the defamatory information” (R. E. Brown, Brown on Defamation (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at para. 7.2). Thus, publication has two components: (1) an act that makes the defamatory information available to a third party in a comprehensible form, and (2) the receipt of the information by a third party in such a way that it is understood.
 The question is whether the first component of publication needs to be reconsidered owing to the impact of new forms of communications media. In answering this question, it will of course be necessary to bear in mind the particular technological feature — the Internet hyperlink — at issue in the case at bar. At the same time, however, the answer must be adaptable to other modes of communication and to future technological change.
 I have read the reasons of my colleague Abella J. It is her view that the concept of publication as understood at common law needs to be altered so as to exclude references, including hyperlinks, from its scope. No longer must a reference, like any other act, simply make the defamatory information available in a comprehensible form: “Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be ‘published’ by the hyperlinker” (para. 42). With respect, I disagree with this approach. I have also read the reasons of the Chief Justice and Fish J. They purport to approve Abella J.’s approach but, in effect, find that there are circumstances in which hyperlinked information can lead to a finding of publication. In so doing, they depart from the bright-line rule proposed by Abella J. In order to give guidance, I would prefer to outline a rule that is consistent with the common law and the civil law of defamation and that will also accommodate future developments in Internet law.
 A reference, devoid of context, has never amounted in law to publication of the information to which it directs the third party. To so hold would be to disregard the bilateral nature of publication. Publication is not complete until someone other than the person referred to receives and understands the defamatory information. Thus, “to shout aloud defamatory words on a desert moor where no one hears them, is not a publication” (Gambrill v. Schooley, 93 Md. 48 (1901), at p. 60). In the context of the Internet, a simple reference, absent evidence that someone actually viewed and understood the defamatory information to which it directs third parties, is not publication of that content.
 Two broad types of hyperlinks can be found on Web pages. The first and most common is an ordinary link. It is always user-activated: the Internet user clicks on a link on a Web page and is transferred to another page. The second type, which is often automatic but can also be user-activated, is created by a process referred to as “framing”. Unlike with ordinary links, in the case of framing, the Internet user does not leave the original Web page: information from another Web page appears in a “frame” on the page already accessed by the user. Where the framing is automatic, the content of other pages appears simultaneously in a frame when the user accesses the primary page. Moreover, a hyperlink can be either a “shallow” link to a site’s home page or a “deep” link to a page located on that site or another site. Both types of hyperlinks, as well as the distinction between shallow and deep links, have previously been referred to by the Court (SOCAN; Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34,  2 S.C.R. 801, at para. 4; and see, generally, M. Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet (3rd ed. 2010), at para. 2.43). In addition to Web pages, a variety of other forms of Internet communications can contain hyperlinks, including e-mail messages and on-line fora. In these reasons, the terms “hyperlink” and “link” will, unless otherwise specified, be used to refer to user-activated hyperlinks.
Under new developments, thanks to the lawsuit, I’ve just met Michael Pilling, who runs OpenPolitics.ca. Based in Toronto, he, too, is being sued for defamation. This time by politician Wayne Crookes.
 The underlined text in this passage constituted hyperlinks, which Mr. Newton admits he created. The evidence indicates that “OpenPolitics.ca” was a shallow link to the Web site in question, on which, Mr. Crookes alleges, several interlinked articles defaming him could be found. The evidence further indicates that “Wayne Crookes” was a deep link to an article on another Web site, www.USGovernetics.com, that Mr. Crookes also alleges to be defamatory. These impugned hyperlinks were among seven different links contained in Mr. Newton’s article and were both preceded and followed by other hyperlinks. All the hyperlinks and the information to which they referred the user could be accessed by the public on line without restrictions.
 As of February 1, 2008, the article “Free Speech in Canada” had been accessed 1,788 times. There is no information in the record on how many people — if any — read the allegedly defamatory material, or on whether any person who may have viewed the material accessed it by clicking on the two hyperlinks or by other means. The evidence is also silent on the behaviour of Internet surfers with respect to hyperlinks, and on the jurisdiction in which any individuals who may have read the hyperlinked material reside.
 Kelleher J. rejected Mr. Crookes’ contention that publication by Mr. Newton of the allegedly defamatory material should be presumed from the fact that he had created the hyperlinks. In the trial judge’s view, the plaintiffs’ failure to adduce any evidence that people had actually clicked on the hyperlinks and read the information was fatal to their position (paras. 20 and 24). Kelleher J. also concluded that the circumstances of the case did not support a finding of publication, drawing an analogy between a hyperlink and a footnote or a reference to a Web site in printed material (para. 29). Although the hyperlinks provided “immediate access to material published on another website” (para. 30), they did not make Mr. Newton a publisher of what readers would find if they chose to click on the link. Kelleher J. endorsed the proposition of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398, 42 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1, that “reference to an article containing defamatory comment without repetition of the comment itself should not be found to be a republication of such defamatory [comment]” (para. 33). He cautioned, however, that this did not mean that a hyperlink can never lead to liability for defamation. If Mr. Newton had written “the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here” and the word “here” was a hyperlink to defamatory information, Kelleher J. might have concluded differently (para. 34).
 Saunders J.A. (Bauman J.A. concurring) wrote the reasons of the majority on the issue of whether publication could be inferred from the circumstances of the case. In her view, it could not. Accepting the bilateral nature of publication, she found that the hyperlinks did not satisfy the requirements of the first component of the definition of that term. She relied on the same jurisprudence as Kelleher J. in support of the proposition that merely referring to defamatory information without repeating it does not constitute publication (para. 81, citing Carter; MacFadden v. Anthony, 117 N.Y.S.2d 520 (Sup. Ct. 1952); Klein v. Biben, 296 N.Y. 638 (1946)). However, the circumstances of a case can demonstrate that a particular hyperlink invited or encouraged a reader to view the hyperlinked site, or that the information on that site was endorsed (para. 84). The majority held that there were no such circumstances in the instant case and that the way Mr. Newton presented the hyperlinks to potential users was “most comparable to a footnote for a reader, or a card index in a library” (para. 89). On the second component of publication, Saunders J.A. expressed the opinion that the bare number of 1,788 hits on Mr. Newton’s article was insufficient to support an inference that at least one person other than Mr. Crookes had clicked on the hyperlinks and read the allegedly defamatory information (para. 92).
 Mr. Crookes argues that there is a presumption of publication whenever there are facts from which it can reasonably be inferred that the allegedly defamatory information was brought to the knowledge of some third person. Applying this proposition to hyperlinks, he contends that given the “deliberateness, immediacy and facilitation of access [to information]” that characterizes such links, the hyperlinked information should be understood to have been incorporated into the Web page on which the links were embedded. As a result, “[i]t can be reasonably inferred that embedding a hyperlink in the primary article brings the contents of the hyperlinked material to the knowledge of a third person [who accesses that article]” (A.F., at paras. 61-62).
 The interveners in this appeal take divergent approaches to when, if ever, a hyperlink could be said to constitute publication of the information to which it refers. The approach of my colleague Abella J. most closely resembles that of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which argues that publication “should be reserved for those situations where an individual actually communicates the allegedly defamatory words” (Factum, at para. 52). The result my colleague reaches is also consistent with the position taken by a group of interveners composed of print, broadcast and Internet media organizations. They argue that hyperlinks should never be equated with publication, because that would threaten the ability of its members to compete and fulfil their mandates in the Internet age (Media Coalition Factum, at paras. 42-43).
 Certain other interveners — the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (“BCCLA”), the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (“CIPPIC”), and NetCoalition — accept that hyperlinking may constitute publication in appropriate circumstances, but seek to restrict those circumstances to instances involving variants of knowledge or explicit endorsement or adoption of linked information by the hyperlinker (e.g., BCCLA Factum, at paras. 22 and 24; CIPPIC Factum, at para. 2; NetCoalition Factum, at para. 4). CIPPIC takes this argument a step further, submitting that a plaintiff must prove publication on “a convincing evidentiary basis” (Factum, at para. 4). Finally, NetCoalition submits that, where a hyperlinker has not explicitly endorsed defamatory information or where there is no nexus between the hyperlink and such an endorsement, a defence of innocent dissemination should be available (Factum, at para. 34).
 When a plaintiff seeks to establish prima facie liability for defamation, the court must not only consider whether the impugned information can reasonably be said to be defamatory and whether it in fact refers to the plaintiff, but must also consider the question of publication to a third party, bearing in mind the bilateral nature of publication. To be published, defamatory words must be “communicated” (Grant, at para. 28). “Communication” means that a message is both sent in a comprehensible form, and received and understood. Publication does not occur until “the defamatory matter is brought by the defendant or his agent to the knowledge and understanding of some person other than the plaintiff” (McNichol v. Grandy,  S.C.R. 696, at p. 704, per Duff J. (as he then was); Brown, at paras. 7.2 and 7.8; Gatley on Libel and Slander (11th ed. 2008), at p. 164).
 Acts that may form the basis for a finding of publication and which may ultimately attract liability for defamation have never been limited to acts of the author or creator of the defamatory information. Rather, “[a]ll those jointly responsible for the publication are liable. Liability extends to all those who take part in the publication of the defamatory material, including those who merely cause or procure it to be published” (Brown, at para. 7.4 (footnotes omitted); Gatley on Libel and Slander, at p. 169; Lambert v. Thomson,  O.R. 341 (C.A.), at p. 344: “. . . where the libel is published in a newspaper or book, everyone who takes part in publishing it or in procuring its publication is prima facie liable”). As this Court noted in Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd.,  3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 75, “the design or agreement of persons to participate in acts which are tortious” is sufficient for them to be found liable for defamation as joint concurrent tortfeasors even if “they did not realize they were committing a tort”.
 Historically, it has been understood that the precise method employed to make information available is immaterial: “There are no limitations on the manner in which defamatory matter may be published” (Brown, at para. 7.3). In Day v. Bream (1837), 2 M. & Rob. 54, 174 E.R. 212, for example, a person who merely delivered parcels was held prima facie liable for putting them into publication; and in R. v. Clerk (1728), 1 Barn. K.B. 304, 94 E.R. 207, a case referred to by my colleague Abella J., a printer’s servant whose sole role was to “clap down” the printing press was found to be responsible for publication. However, the law has changed in the centuries that have elapsed since Day v. Bream and R. v. Clerk.
 The courts have begun incrementally to impose limitations on the nature and types of actions that can attract liability for defamation at common law. To understand this evolution, it will be helpful to look broadly at cases from both the United States and other common law jurisdictions, such as England and Australia. I note that in considering the U.S. cases, we must be mindful of the impact of the First Amendment on the protection of expression in the United States, and of certain significant statutory limits on liability (see comments to this effect: Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd.,  4 All E.R. 342 (Q.B.), at pp. 343-44; Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick,  HCA 56, 210 C.L.R. 575, at para. 52).
 There appears to be an emerging consensus among the courts and commentators that only deliberate acts can meet the first component of the bilateral conception of publication. According to Prof. Brown, “a person must knowingly be involved in the process of publishing the relevant words” (para. 7.4 (emphasis added)). In Stanley v. Shaw, 2006 BCCA 467, 231 B.C.A.C. 186, pleading that the defendants “said and did nothing” (para. 7) was held to be insufficient to support a finding of publication, because no tortious act had been alleged in relation to their silence (see also Smith v. Matsqui (Dist.) (1986), 4 B.C.L.R. (2d) 342 (S.C.), at p. 355; Wilson v. Meyer, 126 P.3d 276 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005), at p. 281 (“[a] plaintiff cannot establish [publication] by showing that the defendant silently adopted a defamatory statement”); Pond v. General Electric Co., 256 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1958), at p. 827 (“[s]ilence is not libel”); Brown, at para. 7.3). In Scott v. Hull, 259 N.E.2d 160 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970), at p. 162, a U.S. court held that “liability to respond in damages for the publication of a libel must be predicated on a positive act, on something done by the person sought to be charged”. I agree with this view.
The test it appears to me is this: having regard to all the facts of the case is the proper inference that by not removing the defamatory matter the defendant really made himself responsible for its continued presence in the place where it had been put?
 Byrne and its progeny are consistent with the requirement that any finding of publication be grounded in a deliberate act. If a defendant was made aware (or had reason to be aware) of defamatory information over which he or she had sufficient control but decided to do nothing about it, this nonfeasance might amount to a deliberate act of approval, adoption, promotion, or ratification of the defamatory information (see, e.g., Frawley v. State of New South Wales,  NSWSC 1379 (AustLII)). The inference is not automatic, but will depend on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances. In Underhill v. Corser,  EWHC 1195 (BAILII) (Q.B.), the defendant, who was treasurer and a board member of a charity, had been aware that an editorial levelling accusations against the plaintiff would be published, but took no action and gave no further thought to the matter. Although Tugendhat J. found that the defendant could have prevented the publication of the editorial, which the plaintiff alleged to be defamatory, he distinguished Byrne, concluding that the defendant’s role as a board member was different from that of the proprietors in Byrne (para. 110).
 This requirement of a deliberate act has already been applied in the context of the Internet. In Godfrey, the defendant Internet service provider (“ISP”) had received a “posting”, which it stored on its news server. The plaintiff had notified the ISP that the posting was defamatory and requested that it be removed, but the defendant had allowed it to remain on its servers until it automatically expired 10 days later. The court held that the ISP’s failure to act, once it had become aware of the defamatory information over which it had control, constituted an act of publication once an Internet subscriber had accessed the posting. In the circumstances of the case, the ISP’s failure to act amounted to a deliberate act of approval, adoption, promotion or ratification of the defamatory information.
 A case that illustrates the nature of activities engaged in by a person who plays the role of a mere conduit is Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corpn.,  EWHC 1765,  1 W.L.R. 1743 (Q.B.). In that case, the question was whether Google Inc. could be found to be the publisher of the search result “snippets” that were generated automatically by its search engine in response to search terms entered by users. Eady J. found that there was no publication, because Google Inc. played a passive instrumental role in facilitating the appearance of the snippets on the users’ screens (paras. 50-51).
 But the requirement that defamatory information be readily available does result in an incremental change to the common law in those cases where the act complained of refers third parties to defamatory information. It narrows the circumstances in which the requirements of the first component of publication will be satisfied. In such instances, the totality of circumstances will reveal whether a third party can have immediate access — without any meaningful barriers — to the information to which the reference directs him or her.
 What should be clear from this is that not all forms of references are the same as regards the extent to which they facilitate access to the information in question. While my colleague’s statement that “[h]yperlinks are, in essence, references” (para. 27) is superficially correct, it is inaccurate to equate a hyperlink with, for example, a footnote in a book. A footnote that does not actually reproduce the information to which the reader is being referred does not make that information readily available. The reader has to locate and obtain the document the footnote refers to and then find the information within the document. In contrast, an automatic hyperlink requires no action whatsoever, while an embedded deep hyperlink requires only the tap of a finger to gain access to the information. The effort involved is even less than that of turning a page in a book. Although it is of course true that hyperlinks are a form of reference, the extent to which they facilitate access and their ubiquity on the Internet cannot be overlooked.
. . . it is difficult to accept that the need for a single command by the user [i.e. clicking on a single hyperlink] would be sufficient for a finding that the provision governing external clauses is applicable. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the reality of the Internet environment, where no real distinction is made between scrolling through a document and using a hyperlink. Analogously to paper documents, some Web documents contain several pages that can be accessed only by means of hyperlinks, whereas others can be viewed by scrolling down them on the computer’s screen. There is no reason to favour one configuration over the other.
. . . the clause was no more difficult for the consumer to access than would have been the case had he or she been given a paper copy of the entire contract on which the terms and conditions of sale appeared on the back of the first page.
 The effect of this approach is not to create a “presumption of liability for all hyperlinkers”, as Abella J. suggests (para. 25). In order to satisfy the requirements of the first component of publication, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the hyperlinker performed a deliberate act that made defamatory information readily available to a third party in a comprehensible form. Moreover, the plaintiff will also have to satisfy the requirements of the second component of publication on a balance of probabilities, namely that a third party received and understood the defamatory information.
 My colleague Abella J. states that “[r]eferencing on its own does not involve exerting control over the content” (para. 26 (emphasis in original)). Yet the concept of publication in the common law of defamation has never involved a rigid requirement of control. Instead, the inquiry has always been contextual: Did the defendant act knowingly and what were the consequences of his actions? (See Brown, at para. 7.3.) Although a formal distinction can of course be drawn between references and other acts of publication, this distinction evades the questions that are at the heart of the law of defamation. Where a person deliberately makes defamatory information readily available through the creation of a hyperlink, the very rationale for the tort of defamation comes into play.
 By exempting ISPs from liability for their passive conduct, U.S. legislators have, in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §230 (1996), relied on the same criterion of deliberateness that exists in the common law of defamation. Nowhere does the American legislation suggest that those who deliberately create hyperlinks to defamatory material should be protected from liability. The cases cited by my colleague (at para. 28 of her reasons) all deal with the immunity enjoyed by ISPs and Web site operators with respect to defamatory content posted on line (Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006); Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)).
 In the English case of Islam Expo Ltd. v. The Spectator (1828) Ltd.,  EWHC 2011 (BAILII) (Q.B.), the issue was whether the words complained of were capable of referring to the claimant. The allegedly defamatory information in that case was an on-line text containing four hyperlinks. In concluding that the words complained of were capable of referring to the claimant, the court regarded the hyperlinked information as if it was incorporated into the message containing the hyperlinks. At a conceptual level, I see no difference between looking at the hyperlinked information to identify the defamed person and looking at it to find the defamatory words. I agree with Tugendhat J.’s statement in Islam Expo that the principles are the same.
 Finally, if hyperlinks are excluded from the traditional conception of publication, there is a risk that freedom of expression will be favoured over reputational interests despite this Court’s pronouncement that they are “equally important” (Hill, at para. 121). Although I agree with my colleague that the most effective remedy for someone who has been defamed on line is to sue the person who created the defamatory material (para. 41), it may not always be possible to do so in the context of the Internet. A hyperlink can make public what was originally intended for only a select audience. Moreover, anonymity is easy to achieve on line, and who created the defamatory material may not always be known. If no remedy exists against “mere” hyperlinkers, persons defamed on line may in many cases not be able to protect their reputations.
. . . the defence of innocent dissemination [is] sometimes available to bookstores, libraries, news vendors, and the like who, generally speaking, have no actual knowledge of an alleged libel, are aware of no circumstances to put them on notice to suspect a libel, and committed no negligence in failing to find out about the libel . . . .
Public interest is not confined to publications on government and political matters, as it is in Australia and New Zealand. Nor is it necessary that the plaintiff be a “public figure”, as in the American jurisprudence since Sullivan [New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]. Both qualifications cast the public interest too narrowly. The public has a genuine stake in knowing about many matters, ranging from science and the arts to the environment, religion and morality. The democratic interest in such wide-ranging public debate must be reflected in the jurisprudence.
 The first link, “OpenPolitics.ca”, was a shallow link to the Open Politics Web site. The evidence indicates that to consult the allegedly defamatory articles on that Web site, Internet users who initially clicked on the shallow link would then have had to take further action (i.e. click on other links) to locate them.
 The determinative question is therefore whether Mr. Crookes has proven facts from which it can reasonably be inferred that the allegedly defamatory information was brought to the knowledge of some third person. On this point, I agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the evidence in this case does not support such an inference. I come to this conclusion mindful of the Internet context, the nature of Mr. Newton’s article, the way the various links were presented, the facts that the “Wayne Crookes” link was the third of seven links contained in Mr. Newton’s article and that at least one shallow link appeared before it, and the number of hits on the article between July 18, 2006, and February 1, 2008. Numbers take on a different meaning in the context of the Internet. The number of hits on Mr. Newton’s article — 1,788 — in the 18-month period does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that out of the seven hyperlinks, someone has both clicked on the only link that made the defamatory information readily available and read that information.
In the context of internet life, we have no way to assess the volume of “hits” here compared to the norm, the usual behaviour of internet readers or “surfers”, or the jurisdiction in which they reside. The conclusion drawn by my colleague is, with respect, tantamount to a presumption that in the case of a website accessed to any significant extent, there has been communication of the offensive material. . . . There may be cases in which more is known supporting such an inference, but such is not the case here where all that is before us is the bald number of hits. In my view there is an insufficient basis upon which to make such an inference . . . .
Solicitors for the appellants: Taylor Jordan Chafetz, Vancouver; Stewart, Aulinger & Company, Vancouver.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKPC 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKHL 
 §230
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKPC 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §230
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §230
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.