 |
| Allison Harris |
On May 2, 2025, siblings Jack (age four) and Lilly (age six) Sullivan were reported missing from their backyard in rural Nova Scotia. After their mother and stepfather reported them missing, police and search and rescue teams began a widespread search that extended for six days, but so far the pair have not been found. Another search on the weekend of May 17 yielded nothing; RCMP are still investigating and have interviewed 35 people so far. They are tight-lipped about the case, which is necessary to maintain the integrity of the investigation and avoid influencing the public’s perception.
Unfortunately, this lack of information fosters speculation. Prior to social media, speculation and gossip occurred in person at the watercooler or over dinner and didn’t spread so quickly. It was easier to tell fact from rumour. Generally, there was more trust in official sources and mainstream media, which also helped sort out real news from idle gossip. What once may have been seen as normal community behaviour has evolved online to show its darkest side. Anonymous posters sitting behind their screens appear to feel empowered to say whatever they want without consequence.
For many, the search for Jack and Lilly, and the increasingly upsetting online behaviour that has emerged, brings back memories of
Lincoln Beddoe: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Within hours of Lilly and Jack being reported missing, the whole world knew it. People flocked to social media for updates. With good intentions and a genuine desire to help, well-meaning citizens created groups to share information and ideas. Sadly, this also stoked rumours and speculation, which began to fill the comment sections on news updates. Online sleuths searched the parents’ names, scoured their Facebook, Instagram and TikTok pages, followed friends lists and other “leads,” and posted about what they found. Posters self-identifying as psychics, detectives and decoders began to weigh in with their theories. Subtle, and not-so-subtle, attacks on the mother and stepfather grew quickly into ugly accusations and threatening language.
This fury of online activity is unfortunately all too familiar. After Dylan Ehler went missing, several groups formed in similar fashion; a congregation of online sleuths determined to solve the case in Dylan’s honour. Many held strong beliefs that his parents and/or other family members were somehow involved in his disappearance, so they scrutinized every piece of “evidence,” looking for “proof” to support their theories.
These activities are reminiscent of the popular 2019 documentary series Don’t F**k With Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer, which chronicles the story of a group of amateur online sleuths who analyzed gruesome online videos of animal cruelty, which led to the arrest of a killer. The current groups of amateur online sleuths appear to believe they can do likewise for Lilly and Jack.
This online speculation, especially when it rises to threats, intimidation and direct messaging, can and does cause harm. We need only remember the case of 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons, who endured years of online bullying related to personal intimate images taken during a sexual assault. Her case spawned a campaign for cyberbullying legislation and led to the enactment of Nova Scotia’s Cyber Safety Act, which was Canada’s first legislation aimed at protecting victims from online harassment. The Cyber Safety Act was struck down as unconstitutional in 2015 and replaced with the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, S.N.S. 2017, c. 7 in 2018.
In Nova Scotia, this Act provides a civil remedy for such victims. Some acts of cyberbullying are criminal offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, e.g.:
- Criminal harassment (s. 264)
- Uttering threats (s. 264.1)
- Distribution of intimate images without consent (s. 162.1)
The Act created a cause of action in cyberbullying, which provides a range of civil remedies, with a broader definition that captures offensive conduct that may not rise to the level of a criminal offence. The Act also includes provisions for sharing of intimate images without consent.
The Act allows for damages without proof of harm. However, the specific facts of the case will inform the amount and type of damages. In the first case decided under the Act, Candelora v. Feser, 2020 NSSC 177, Justice Joshua Arnold found that the respondents had engaged in a campaign of venomous Facebook postings in a malicious attempt to cause harm to the applicant’s health or well-being. Justice Arnold prohibited them from having any further communication with the applicant, from making any further cyberbullying posts, and ordered them to take down all previous posts or disable access if they could not be taken down. Damages totalling $85,000 were awarded, including $50,000 general, $20,000 aggravated and $15,000 punitive damages.
In December 2022, in Benoit v. Facebook Group, 2022 NSSC 374, Justice Diane Rowe prohibited the respondent from having further contact with the applicant, from making any further communications that would be cyberbullying, and ordered that harmful posts be taken down and a Facebook group be disabled.
In June 2024, in a case involving the distribution of intimate images, Justice Arnold again ruled in favour of the applicant in Williams v. Lester, 2024 NSSC 168 (liability), 2025 NSSC 15 (damages), finding the respondent posted the applicant’s intimate image online advertising her as a sex worker without her permission for the purpose of bullying, harassing and humiliating her. The applicant was awarded $45,000 in damages, including $30,000 general, $10,000 aggravated and $5,000 punitive damages.
In the case of Dylan Ehler, the parents brought a claim against administrators of one of the Facebook groups where widespread speculation had turned into menacing and threatening conduct. It was ultimately settled out of court with Consent Orders creating restrictions on further online posts and groups.
Violating a cyberbullying order (other than an order for payment of damages), under s. 11 of the Act, is punishable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months.
Perhaps people are slowly learning their online conduct can have consequences. One big difference between Dylan in 2020 and Lilly and Jack in 2025 is the exponential increase in anonymous posters. Positive differences include the number of posters speaking out against comments that could be considered cyberbullying and the fact that many group administrators are monitoring and slowing the spread of disinformation. Many posts, from official sources (RCMP, etc.), news media and within groups, have “commenting” turned off altogether. Change is slow, but it is happening.
Allison Harris is an associate lawyer with Carter Simpson in Halifax, practising mainly in the areas of personal injury litigation, insurance and disability law. When not working you can find her outside enjoying nature.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.