COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO 40 DAYS FOR LIFE Plaintiff

The location analysis is contextual and pragmatic, focusing on the historical and actual functions of the place where the expression occurs.8 In City of Montreal,9 the Supreme Court presciently commented on the possibility that developments in communications technology might require a modified analysis, noting:10 A final concern is whether the proposed test is flexible enough to accommodate future. [...] While online platforms have the power to magnify many forms of protest and reach a broader group of like-minded individuals, this increased potential for disruption should not change the analysis, balancing the importance of the protest speech against the claims of the party seeking to restrain that speech. [...] The common law reflects the experience of the past, the reality of modern social concerns and a sensitivity to the future. [...] Church of Scientology, the Supreme Court found that the common law of defamation struck an appropriate balance between the competing interests of expressive freedom and reputational protection.36 In Grant v Torstar, the Supreme Court accepted that freedom of expression encompasses more than statements which fit within the defences of fair comment or of qualified privilege.37 Further, the Supreme C. [...] In particular, the Supreme Court held that the nature of an expression, its subject matter, the motivation behind it, and the form through which it is expressed are all relevant factors to consider when assessing whether and to what extent limits on a particular expression may be justified or appropriate.43 The closer the impugned expression lies to the core values of s.