The appellants appealed interlocutory orders granting defamation and harassment injunctions, a publication ban, and substantial costs against them.
The dispute arose after the appellants created websites and online petitions expressing concern about their adult son's relationship with an older man, including hyperlinks to articles about online exploitation.
The Divisional Court found the motions judge applied the wrong test for defamation injunctions and that the websites alone were not clearly defamatory.
However, the court held that hyperlinking to the articles effectively identified the respondents, constituting publication.
The defamation injunction was narrowed to only require removal of the hyperlinks.
The harassment injunction and publication ban were set aside for lacking legal and evidentiary foundation.
The appeal was granted in part, with costs awarded to the appellants.
