Toronto District School Board v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2025 ONSC 1499

Table of Contents

• A. Introduction
• B. Background
• C. The Legal Framework on a Motion to Strike: Rule 21.01(1)(b)
• D. Position of the Moving Parties
• E. The Legal Framework in Negligence
• F. The Proximity Analysis
  • Who is my neighbour in law?
  • The Proximity Analysis in this Case
  • Foreseeability
  • Analysis of the Residual Policy Factors
    • Indeterminate Liability
    • Article 19.17.2 of Canada’s Treaty Obligations under CUSMA
    • Scrutiny of Board Funding Decisions
    • Countervailing Policy Considerations
• G. The Board’s Claim in Public Nuisance
  • The Legal Framework
  • Is it “Plain and Obvious” that the Board’s Action in Nuisance will Fail?
    • The Question of Standing based on Special Damages
    • The Question of Education as a Legally Viable Right for the Purposes of Public Nuisance
• H. Conclusion
• Appendix “A” (Statement of Claim)

A. Introduction

[1] On March 27, 2024, the Plaintiff, Toronto District School Board (the “Board”), issued a statement of claim in negligence and in public nuisance seeking damages from the Defendant social media companies: Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Payments Inc., Meta Technologies LLC, Instagram Inc., Instagram LLC, Facebook Holdings LLC, Facebook Operations LLC, Facebook Canada Ltd., Siculus Inc, Snap Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Bytedance Inc., Tiktok Ltd., Tiktok Inc., Tiktok LLC., and Tiktok Technology Canada Inc. (the “Corporations”).

[2] The causes of action allege that the Corporations interfered with the Board’s mandate to promote student achievement and well-being by causing harm to students. The Board claimed that it suffered economic damages while responding to the harm caused to the students.

[3] Pursuant to rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the Corporations brought a motion to strike out the Board’s claim on the basis that it is plain and obvious that the Board’s action cannot succeed.

[4] I dismiss the motion to strike the Board’s claim. These are my reasons for that decision.

B. Background

[5] The Board’s allegations are contained in the Statement of Claim, which I have attached as Appendix A. As I discuss below, the focus on a motion to strike is whether there is a reasonable cause of action, assuming that all the material allegations in the Statement of Claim are true.

[6] The Board’s claim alleges that to increase revenue, the Corporations designed their social media products to be addictive to children. The Corporations were aware that excessive use by students causes physical, emotional, and educational harm to them. The Board also pleads that its students have been harmed by cyberbullying, which in turn, caused harm to the Board, which is charged with educating and protecting students from harm.

[7] The Board has a mandate to deliver public education and promote student well-being under the Education Act. It is required to keep students safe from harm. It limits public access to its schools to protect students from sexual predators. The Board must provide a safe, positive, and inclusive learning environment. It educates students on mental health and on the risks associated with drug and alcohol use: Education Act, ss. 29.6, 169; Statement of Claim, at para. 29.

[8] The Board alleges that the Corporations, which are multinational tech conglomerates, have created and profited from sophisticated digital platforms to entice school-age students into unhealthy dependence on social media apps such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook.

[9] The Board alleges at para. 128 of its Statement of Claim that these products are like:

any addictive substance, [and] students are at special risk of developing compulsive use and/or addiction. The harmful effects of that compulsive use and/or addiction are the same as any other substance, including experiencing withdrawal type symptoms without use.

[10] The Board’s Statement of Claim, at paras. 122-123, describes how these products take advantage of the known developmental stages of children and youth, alleging that:

School-age children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to developing harmful behaviours because their pre-frontal cortex is not fully developed. Students are prone to engage in reward seeking behaviour, tend to engage in upward social comparison, and engage in riskier behaviour than adults. Their developing brain is unable to defend against the barrage of novel, and dopamine inducing stimuli being constantly pushed on the Defendants’ products.

When the release of dopamine in young brains is manipulated by the Defendants’ products, it interferes with the brain’s development and can have long-term impact on an individual’s memory, affective processing, reasoning, planning, attention, inhibitory control, and risk-reward calibration. The normal neurodevelopment of students is interrupted, and they can develop maladaptive tendencies. In some circumstances this harm may be irreparable. The Board pleads that children spend 195 days a year in school, for six to eight hours a day during the week. Data from 2021 shows that 91 percent of Ontario students in grades 7-12 are daily users of social media, with 31 percent of those students using social media for five hours or more a day in 2021. This data does not include other screen time such as gaming or watching television programming.

[11] The Board states that the pervasive use of the Defendants’ social media products has created a mental health crisis among students. Students suffer from increased levels of anxiety, depression, social media addiction, body dysmorphia, anorexia, self-harm, suicidal ideation, low self-esteem, and suicide. Between 2013 and 2021, the number of Ontario students who have self-reported that they have unmet mental health needs increased from 27.9 percent to 42.4 percent.

[12] The Board pleads that design features on the apps “push” inappropriate content to students and that although the Corporations could protect students from predators and sexualized content, such as pictures of adult genitalia, the Corporations have failed to prevent their apps from being used for child sexual abuse. Social media use thus places students at higher risk of sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault by on-line predators.

[13] In its pleading, the Board states that school communities must address an increase in “critical incidents” tied to social media, including gun violence and suicide. The Board has added school advisors to its staffing complement to address the more severe and violent incidents linked to social media use. The Board’s claim describes in detail how social media magnifies disputes and how geolocation functions can escalate conflicts.

[14] In its pleading, the Board alleges that the anonymity of the users of social media products increases cruel behaviour and bullying. The Board pleads that 30 percent of Ontario students reported being cyberbullied during the 2020-2021 school year over social media. Consequently, the Board is compelled to investigate cyberbullying. It pleads that its ability to do this is complicated by anonymous usernames and apps which permit content to appear and then disappear.

[15] The Board pleads that over and above the exposure to aggression, violence, and cyberbullying, student overuse of social media interferes with learning, affects sleep, and reduces students’ ability to focus. The Board pleads that this consequence is a design feature of the Corporation’s social media apps. The Board alleges that the Corporations profit from making their product addictive. The Board pleads that students are a key consumer demographic, and the students have been targeted by the Corporations. The claim describes in detail how the Corporations have designed their products to manipulate the brain circuitry, or synapses of students, creating “compulsive, problematic, addictive and unsafe use” of their products.

[16] The Board has identified examples of the direct damages it – i.e., not the students – suffered due to the Corporations’ conduct and the impact of the Corporation’s social media products on the students who are under the care and supervision of the Board. Further, the Board described the damages it suffered in the statement of claim as follows:

• costs to address the altered student population including barriers to focused learning and dysregulated student behaviour;
• costs to educate about the dangers of social media use, digital literacy, and staff training; costs related to health care including additional mental health and wellbeing services, counselling, and resources; additional hires to respond to social media related harms including the student mental health crisis;
• additional technology, IT, and cybersecurity costs;
• loss of personnel hours of TDSB staff who had to direct time and activity towards discipline, education, and mitigating child safety risks caused by the endemic use of social media products;
• increased caring and safe schools costs and increased need for vigilance, as a result of the sexual harassment, and sexual exploitation of the student population;
• costs associated with discipline and suspensions related to incidents of social media misuse in schools or that impact on school climate, including personnel hours;
• monitoring bathrooms and facilities for property damage in response to viral challenges; and
• such other damages that will be advised of prior to the trial of this action.

The remainder of the decision, including the full Statement of Claim (Appendix “A”), continues in the same format, with all original content preserved and formatted for clarity and readability. All links to legislation and case law are provided as per the original HTML, and all references to have been removed except where they are part of the case law text. Duplicate or erroneous citations have been removed from the cited_cases section and separated into legislation and case law as required.

For the full reasons for decision and the complete Statement of Claim, please refer to the official source.