CITATION: Miller et al v. Ahn et al, 2026 ONSC 4805
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-00014127-0000
DATE: 20260821
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KATERINA MILLER and K. MILLER LAW P.C., Plaintiffs
AND:
JIEUN AHN, GINNYSAIDSO, GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE CANADA CORPORATION, YOUTUBE, LLC, META PLATFORMS, INC., OTHER CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, FACEBOOK CANADA LTD. INSTAGRAM, LLC, OTHER CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, INSTAGRAM INC., OTHER INCORPORATED SERVICES LTD., DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, DOE, Defendants
BEFORE: Parghi J.
COUNSEL: Katerina Miller, for the Plaintiffs
Stephen Ellis, for the Defendants Jieuhn Ahn and Ginnysaidso
HEARD: August 10 and 14, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Katerina Miller is a lawyer and the principal of her own law practice, K. Miller Law P.C. (the “Firm”). The defendant, Jieun Ahn, operates various social media accounts, including on X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, under the name “Ginnysaidso”. Ms. Ahn’s evidence is that she has about 120,000 followers on Facebook and that one of the issues she discusses on her social media is the Israel-Palestine conflict.
[2] Ms. Miller and Ms. Ahn do not know each other. They first interacted through Facebook after Ms. Ahn, as “Ginnysaidso,” posted about Israel-Palestine. Ms. Miller, in what she acknowledges was not her finest hour, responded with posts calling Ms. Ahn various names, including “stupid idiot,” “fkn moron,” “moron,” and “ludicrous idiot looking for likes,” on nine occasions between May 30 and July 4, 2026. Her evidence is that she was responding to offensive and anti-Semitic content on Ms. Ahn’s social media, including content describing Israelis as “rats” and mocking bereaved Israeli parents at their child’s funeral.
[3] What followed, as I discuss below, was a wildly disproportionate, orchestrated campaign of online harassment of Ms. Miller and the Firm, initiated and encouraged by Ms. Ahn, hiding behind the anonymity of her “Ginnysaidso” handle, and eagerly carried out by her social media followers. Ms. Ahn, in a video she posted on all her social media accounts on July 9, 2026, encouraged her followers to leave negative reviews on Facebook about the plaintiffs, in an effort to undermine Ms. Miller’s professional reputation and livelihood. Ms. Ahn’s followers complied with gusto. They “review bombed” the Firm. They expressed the desire to send the Firm “spam” emails, lower its Google Business Profile rating, and “get” Ms. Miller. They placed large numbers of sarcastic “laughing” emojis over the content of the Firm’s website. In the same video, Ms. Ahn, fresh from her war of words with Ms. Miller over Israel-Palestine, deliberately called her followers’ attention to Ms. Miller’s perceived Jewish identity or association with Israel. Again, her followers took the bait, posting comments and sending Ms. Miller direct messages that can only be described as anti-Semitic, utterly vile, and at times overtly threatening.
[4] The plaintiffs now seek interim relief requiring the removal of the July 9 video and a second post of Ms. Ahn’s from the following day, pending the interlocutory injunction proceedings. They initially sought the removal of eight posts from Ms. Ahn’s social media accounts, in addition to orders relating to service on Ms. Ahn, who had been evading service of the Statement of Claim. By the time of the hearing before me, the service issues had been resolved and the parties had come to an agreement, pending trial, on six of the eight posts in dispute.
[5] For the reasons below, I grant an interim injunction requiring Ms. Ahn to remove the two social media posts at issue and refrain from making similar posts or expressions in the future, on any social or other media. I find that Ms. Miller and the Firm have established a strong prima facie case of harassment in internet communications and the remaining grounds for injunctive relief pending the interlocutory injunction proceedings.
Background
[6] As noted above, Ms. Miller and Ms. Ahn first interacted on Facebook between May 30 and July 4, 2026.
[7] On July 9, 2026, Ms. Ahn published a video on various social media platforms – Instagram, YouTube, X, and Facebook among them – using her “Ginnysaidso” handle. The video bears the caption “What would I do without you Katerina Miller from K. Miller Law”.
[8] Ms. Ahn begins the video by saying, sarcastically, “I just want to give a shout-out to one of my hardcore supporters. Meet Katharina Miller.” She depicts Ms. Miller’s personal Facebook page in the background as she continues speaking into the microphone. She shows some of the comments Ms. Miller has made to Ms. Ahn, described above, while narrating about Ms. Miller, “She’s been supporting my Facebook page, almost showing up every day. It looks like she has her own firm”. She begins to show the Firm’s Facebook page, which includes its contact information. She continues, “And this might be her Facebook page with reviews wide open.” She looks at the camera. Then she continues, “Um, maybe she’s not too busy, see I’m sure there’s a lot of unemployed people in Toronto, including maybe herself, I don’t know.”
[9] Ms. Ahn then shows what appears to be Ms. Miller’s husband’s personal Facebook page, which contains his name, what appears to be the name of his current workplace, and information about his education, including that he studied at Tel Aviv University (whose name is written in English and Hebrew). Ms. Miller’s husband’s Facebook page also contains a photograph of their two young children, one of whom is an infant, bearing a small Israeli flag at the bottom. She continues, “But everything on her Facebook page is public.” She zooms in on the picture of the children and the Israeli flag. She looks at the camera, takes a lengthy pause, and adds, “Yeah.”
[10] I find the portion of the video I have just described to be particularly ominous.
[11] Ms. Ahn concludes with a sarcastic “shout out to Katharina, the Toronto lawyer. Thank you for the view, every day.”
[12] After posting the video, Ms. Ahn commented in response to it, “pinning” a link to Google Maps identifying where the Firm is located, together with the Firm’s Google Business profile.
[13] It is clear what Ms. Ahn sought to convey in the video. She depicted for her followers the online skirmish she had been engaged in with Ms. Miller, reproduced Ms. Miller’s personal and work Facebook pages, and invited her followers to leave negative reviews of Ms. Miller and the Firm (“It looks like she has her own firm. And this might be her Facebook page with reviews wide open” – followed up by a pointed look at the camera). She depicted information about Ms. Miller’s husband that identifies him, and therefore Ms. Miller, as having connections to Israel (the Israeli flag on the baby picture, the reference to Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew writing). For good measure, she then had her camera zoom in on the Israeli flag, and she paused. The video was meant to incite her followers to “review bomb” Ms. Miller and the Firm, threaten Ms. Miller’s professional reputation and livelihood, and target her for her perceived Jewish or Israeli identity. This is the clear and obvious interpretation of the video. I am unable to come up with any competing interpretation. Ms. Ahn has proffered none.
[14] Ms. Ahn’s followers accepted her invitation with zeal. Most of them, like Ms. Ahn, post under “handles” rather than their real names. One follower, in a comment that received 288 “likes,” said, about Ms. Miller, “SHE CLOSED HER [FACEBOOK] REVIEWS LOLLL. GO TO GOOGLE REVIEWS.” Others responded with comments like “I posted this on there,” “already did even call the place,” “Me too,” “Heading there now,” “Go to gooooooogle we gotta bring that 4.7 rating down!” “I got the assignment. I’m on it,” “i [sic] harassed every photo and the last year of posts on the law page,” and “Get her gang!” Another published the Firm’s phone number and stated “express your concern” and “feel free to spam!!!” Another stated that the Firm was listed on Google Maps as “K MILLER LAW” in Toronto; Ms. Ahn “liked” that comment. Another published a link to the Law Society of Ontario complaints page, presumably to encourage others to report Ms. Miller to her professional regulator; Ms. Ahn and 347 other readers “liked” that comment.
[15] In the days that followed Ms. Ahn’s July 9, 2026 video, the Firm was “review bombed.” It received numerous fabricated one-star reviews on Facebook and at least 12 fabricated one-star reviews on its Google Business profile. The fabricated reviews said things like “I would never use her to do anything for my family!!!!” and “Worse service ever. Do not recommend.”
[16] I have described these reviews as fabricated because the uncontroverted evidence is that they were posted by people who had never been clients of the Firm and were in fact complete strangers to the Firm. Whatever reviews they purported to offer therefore bore no connection to their actual interactions with Ms. Miller or the Firm. Notably, many of the fabricated one-star reviews were posted within a day of Ms. Ahn’s video being published. Almost all of them were published within two days of the video. There is no evidence of any fabricated reviews being published prior to the video.
[17] Other comments and direct messages appear to have been posted in response to the references to Israel in Ms. Miller’s husband’s Facebook page, including the image of the Israeli flag, which Ms. Ahn had not only depicted but also pointedly zoomed in on. These comments and direct messages addressed Ms. Miller’s perceived Jewish identity or Israeli association. They say things like “Fuccccckkk Zionism and your Family,” “she’s a jUUe from [Ukraine],” “Zionist Jew,” “Show the world who this zio real is,” and “Another Russian claiming Palestine as their home”. One follower proposed creating a “Genocidal Trolls Exposed!” group targeting Ms. Miller and others. YouTube users disparaged Ms. Miller’s Tel Aviv University degree and Israeli society and said “She’s Ukrainian who claim to be from the Middle East! … I hope her child survives her.”
[18] Ms. Miller also received repeated phone calls and harassing, threatening, and hateful communications on her personal phone number. One individual called her a string of slurs, including a Spanish-language slur for a Jewish person. This individual sent Ms. Miller a series of text messages swearing at her, her ancestors, and her family; expressing the fervent hope that they would all die; calling her a “F**king b**ch” and a “whore,”; accusing her of hating children and making fun of dying children in Gaza; demanding that she pick up the phone to answer their calls; and threatening, “Ur career is over.”
[19] After Ms. Ahn posted her video, large numbers of “laughing” emojis were also placed on the content of the Firm’s Facebook page. Ms. Miller had to remove some of the page’s content.
[20] On July 10, 2026, Ms. Ahn made the second of the two posts at issue in this proceeding, again anonymously under the handle “Ginnysaidso.” The post contains a screenshot from her July 9, 2026 video and reproduces a message from a third party saying that
content creator GinnySaidSo, who has been promoting antisemitic content, targeted Jewish employment lawyer Katarina Miller online, directing her audience of more than 100,000 followers toward her. Since then, Katarine has reportedly received numerous hateful messages and negative reviews. Please consider leaving a positive review on her Google Business profile and Facebook page. Positive feedback can help counteract coordinated review-bombing while supporting someone who is experiencing online harassment.
Above the screenshot, Ms. Ahn posted that Ms. Miller “couldn’t face the consequences of her own action and went to mommy and daddy” – seemingly a reference to the third party that posted the message soliciting positive reviews of the Firm to combat the “review bombing” – and posted another link to the Firm’s Facebook page.
[21] In the comments, one follower asked Ms. Ahn, “Do you need help to viral this *roll sleeve*”. Ms. Ahn’s response was, “I will SOS when needed. Thank you Fam.” In my view this message underscores both the degree to which some of Ms. Ahn’s followers are her willing foot soldiers, and the fact that Ms. Ahn mobilizes them as she deems necessary.
[22] That same day, Ms. Miller and her Firm sent Ms. Ahn a written “cease and desist” letter instructing her to remove the posts. In the letter, Ms. Miller explained with some specificity what Ms. Ahn had said in her video, how commenters had responded, how she had been “review bombed,” and how she had received direct messages and calls wishing death upon her and her family and containing slurs targeting her perceived religion and ethnicity. Ms. Miller outlined her position that Ms. Ahn’s “coordinated campaign to identify, publicize, and direct third parties to harass [her] and damage [her] business” was illegal. She demanded, among other things, that the video and any related posts about Ms. Miller or her business be immediately removed from all platforms.
[23] On July 11, 2026, Ms. Ahn posted the cease and desist letter on social media, with a post saying, “My first ever cease and desist LOL”. “LOL” means “laugh out loud”.
[24] The evidence is that prior to the July 9, 2026 video, the Firm’s Facebook page held a five-star rating. Ms. Miller had to disable the review function as a consequence of the “review bombing,” which in turn resulted in her losing the genuine (and positive) reviews the Firm had garnered in the roughly one and a half years since it had opened.
[25] After Ms. Miller disabled the review function, Ms. Ahn posted, “she removed the review section from [Facebook] amd [sic] deleted all comments”. Ms. Ahn inserted a “laughing so hard I’m crying” emoji and continued, “she’s complaining to me right now after FAFO”. The latter is an abbreviation for “f**k around and find out”. What Ms. Ahn meant by this is that Ms. Miller had “f**ked around” with Ms. Ahn, and now Ms. Miller was “finding out” what the consequences of doing so were. In my view, this post makes amply clear that Ms. Ahn was pursuing some form of retribution by unleashing her supporters to attack Ms. Miller.
[26] Around August 1, 2026, Google removed most of the fabricated one-star reviews for violation of Google policies. After that date, at least two additional fabricated one-star reviews were posted. The plaintiffs say that this is because Ms. Ahn’s posts encouraging followers to leave the negative reviews remain online. Eventually Google disabled the ability to post any reviews on Ms. Miller’s Google Business Profile, leaving it impossible for authentic reviews to be placed on the Profile.
[27] As at August 2, 2026, on Instagram, at least 10,500 viewers had “liked” the July 9 video, at least 251 had commented on it, and 371 had reposted it. On Facebook, the “went to mommy and daddy” post had garnered 791 likes, 38 comments, and 11 shares. These numbers show that the two posts were published to an extremely large audience and received considerable engagement.
[28] The plaintiffs issued a Statement of Claim pleading, among other causes of action, defamation, civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, internet harassment, and intentional infliction of mental suffering. They made four unsuccessful attempts to serve Ms. Ahn with the Statement of Claim personally at her home. After three of these attempts had taken place, Ms. Ahn posted a video acknowledging the attempts at service and stating that she had told her building concierge not to confirm her presence.
[29] I conclude my discussion of the factual background by noting that the only evidence Ms. Ahn tenders in this proceeding is an affidavit detailing her interactions with Ms. Miller prior to the July 9, 2026 video, which are summarized above. By failing to adduce any evidence in relation to the July 9 video, the July 10 “went to mommy and daddy” post, their aftermath, or any of her subsequent social media activity, Ms. Ahn does not contest that she published the July 9 video; that in the video she said what the plaintiffs assert she said; that the comments, “likes,” and direct messages described above were posted or sent to Ms. Miller; that she posted Ms. Miller’s husband’s Facebook profile, which contained a photograph of Ms. Miller’s two small children; that she posted and then pointedly zoomed in on the Israeli flag on that picture of the children; that she invited her followers to “review bomb” the Firm; or that she wanted her followers to engage with Ms. Miller and the Firm. She offers no evidence that she was surprised or displeased by the vitriolic and anti-Semitic tone of some of that engagement, or that she regrets letting the genie out of the bottle.
[30] I further observe that, to date, Ms. Ahn has not removed the July 9 video or the “went to mommy and daddy” post; removed her “likes” on the comments inviting others to report Ms. Miller to the Law Society or telling them how the firm was identified on Google Maps; or posted any communication asking her followers to tone down their rhetoric or simply refrain from threatening Ms. Miller. One might have imagined that, having released the trolls, Ms. Ahn might eventually have tried to rein them back in. She has pointedly avoided doing so, even in the face of the cease and desist letter and this proceeding.
Analysis
The test for injunctive relief
[31] A party may seek an interim or interlocutory injunction pursuant to s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Here, the plaintiffs seek an interim injunction requiring the removal of the July 9, 2026 video and the July 10, 2026 “went to mommy and daddy” post, and prohibiting any similar posts or communications, pending the interlocutory injunction proceedings.
[32] The test for such relief is well-established: the moving party must establish that their action raises either a serious issue to be tried or a strong prima facie case, that they will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted until the completion of the trial, and that the balance of convenience favours granting the relief sought because they would suffer greater harm than the responding party if the injunction is not granted (RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, at pp. 348-349; R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2018 SCC 5, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 196, at paras. 12-13). The three criteria are not to be viewed as self-contained: they are interrelated considerations, and weakness in one may be compensated for by strength in another (Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 1997 CanLII 1385 (ON CA), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.)).
Strong prima facie case
[33] The plaintiffs acknowledge that because they are seeking a mandatory injunction that would require Ms. Ahn to take the affirmative step of removing the social media posts, the more onerous “strong prima facie case” standard applies in the first branch of the test. This means they must show “a case of such merit that it is very likely to succeed at trial” based on the law and the evidence presented” (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, at para. 17).
[34] On the record before me, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case of harassment in internet communications against Ms. Ahn.
[35] In Caplan v Atas, 2021 ONSC 670, at para. 70, the Divisional Court defined the tort of harassment in internet communications as arising
where the defendant maliciously or recklessly engages in communications conduct so outrageous in character, duration, and extreme in degree, so as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and tolerance, with the intent to cause fear, anxiety, emotional upset or to impugn the dignity of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffers such harm.
[36] I find, first, that there is a strong prima facie case that Ms. Ahn has engaged in communications conduct “so outrageous in character, duration and extreme in degree as to go beyond all bounds of decency and tolerance.” Through her various social media accounts, she published the Facebook profiles of Ms. Miller, her husband, and the Firm; published the coordinates of the Firm; published Ms. Miller’s husband’s Facebook profile, which contains a photograph of Ms. Miller’s children; and deliberately, and provocatively, highlighted Ms. Miller’s perceived Jewish identity. As detailed above, in doing so, she deliberately mobilized and unleashed her army of followers against Ms. Miller and the Firm, as detailed above. Their attacks against Ms. Miller were both professional and personal in nature; some were deeply offensive and anti-Semitic and others were overtly threatening. Ms. Ahn encouraged the attacks, including by “liking” her followers’ posts identifying how the Firm was identified on Google Maps and how complaints may be made against lawyers before the Law Society of Ontario. She was well aware of what her followers were doing to Ms. Miller and the Firm in real-time, having “liked” some of their comments and having received the cease and desist letter, which detailed the harassment Ms. Miller and the Firm were experiencing, and which Ms. Ahn proceeded to mock on social media.
[37] Ms. Ahn’s communications conduct, in inciting, enabling, and fomenting this behaviour by her followers, and then allowing it to proceed unchecked, is outrageous in character. It is extreme in degree. She did not make a momentary error in judgment and come to regret it. She made a conscious decision, carried it out with the help of others, and revelled in what she had unleashed. Even after learning from the demand letter that Ms. Miller had received messages wishing death upon her and her family and containing slurs targeting her perceived religion and ethnicity, Ms. Ahn was unphased. She did not try to moderate her followers’ behaviour. She did not remove the posts at issue. She did nothing. This exceeded all bounds of decency and tolerance.
[38] Ms. Ahn’s counsel asserts that her communications conduct has not been long enough in duration to meet the test in Caplan. I acknowledge that her conduct has been shorter in duration than that of the defendant in Caplan, who waged an online war over a period of many years. But in my view that does not place Ms. Ahn’s conduct outside of the scope of the tort. I do not read the test in Caplan as placing the nature and the duration of the conduct in two distinct categories, both of which must be established for the tort to be shown. Rather, they represent two bases on which to evaluate the outrageousness of the communications conduct. Ms. Ahn’s conduct was nothing if not outrageous, even if it was, thankfully, limited to a relatively short time span.
[39] Moreover, Ms. Ahn’s communications conduct, unlike that of the defendant in Caplan, was directed toward a large online audience, seemingly eager to carry out instructions, and resulted in an orchestrated campaign of harassment. In this respect, it is even more outrageous than the conduct at issue in Caplan, which involved posts made by one individual to far smaller audiences, and with no intention to mobilize scores of others against her target.
[40] Further, there is a strong prima facie case that Ms. Ahn intended to cause fear, anxiety, or emotional upset to Ms. Miller, or to impugn her dignity. The July 9 video and the “FAFO” post establish that Ms. Ahn was motivated by a desire for retribution for Ms. Miller’s earlier comments to her. The “FAFO” post shows that Ms. Ahn was pleased to learn that Ms. Miller was being harassed. Simply put, she wanted to teach Ms. Miller a lesson. When she learned, from her followers’ posts themselves and from the cease and desist letter, that that lesson was being meted out and that Ms. Miller was experiencing fear and upset as a consequence of the harassment and threats, she did not stop.
[41] Finally, there is a strong prima facie case that Ms. Miler suffered fear, anxiety, emotional upset, and impugned dignity. Ms. Ahn’s communications conduct has undermined Ms. Miller’s and the Firm’s professional reputations by causing “review bombing” and other harassment. This resulted in Google disabling the ability of authentic reviewers to post reviews on the Firm’s Google Business Profile. It also forced the Firm to disable the review function on its Facebook page, which resulted in the removal of the positive reviews the Firm had accumulated on the page since it opened a year and a half ago. Further, Ms. Ahn’s communications conduct has undermined Ms. Miller’s privacy and safety, on behalf of herself and her family, by publishing her workplace location, her contact information, and a photograph of her two small children to followers who are outraged on Ms. Ahn’s behalf. It has undermined Ms. Miller’s dignity, by conspicuously and ominously identifying Ms. Miller based on her perceived religion and/or connection to Israel to a mob that is evidently ready to demean and threaten her (and her family) based on that identity.
[42] I accordingly find that the plaintiffs have established a strong prima facie case of harassment in internet communications. In light of that finding, I need not consider whether she has shown a strong prima facie case in respect of the other causes of action advanced.
Irreparable harm
[43] I am also to consider whether irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted. The burden is on the plaintiffs to place sufficient evidence before me to show that they will suffer irreparable harm, which is harm that “either cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot collect damages from the other” (RJR-MacDonald, at p. 341). The word “irreparable” describes the nature of the harm, rather than its magnitude (RJR-MacDonald, at p. 341). I am to consider the question of irreparable harm in the context of the specific facts of this case.
[44] I am satisfied that the harm Ms. Miller and the Firm have experienced, detailed above, is irreparable without an injunction. If the posts are not removed, the harassment and its attendant impact on Ms. Miller’s and the Firm’s professional reputations, her and her family members’ privacy and safety, and her dignity, will continue and expand. The posts, like all social media content, are interactive. They are intended to elicit, and they do elicit, reader engagement. In this case, that engagement has had harrowing consequences. The longer the posts survive, and the more Ms. Ahn republishes them or publishes posts like them, the greater those consequences will be.
[45] I therefore find that, in the circumstances of this case, the harm that the plaintiffs are suffering can only be remedied by the removal of both of the offending posts.
[46] Ms. Ahn’s counsel asserts that the irreparable harm requirement is not met because there is no causal link between Ms. Ahn’s posts, on the one hand, and the barrage of fabricated one-star reviews the Firm received, on the other. He acknowledges that the reviews were fabricated. But he does not accept that Ms. Ahn’s comment to her followers that the Firm’s review page was “wide open”, followed by her pinning the link to the Firm’s location and Google Business profile, had anything to do with the “review bombing”. He suggests that the reviews might merely have been left in retribution for Ms. Miller’s war of words with Ms. Ahn. He states that what happened to the plaintiffs was the foreseeable consequence of Ms. Miller calling Ms. Ahn names.
[47] I reject this claim.
[48] The timeline makes the causal link clear. There is no evidence that the Firm received fabricated one-star reviews at any time during Ms. Miller’s and Ms. Ahn’s initial Facebook skirmish, which lasted from May 30 to July 4, 2026, or even between July 4 and July 9, when Ms. Ahn posted her video. To the contrary, Ms. Miller’s evidence, which Ms. Ahn does not contest, is that before Ms. Ahn’s video, no fabricated reviews had ever been posted to the Firm’s Google Business Profile. Virtually all the fabricated one-star reviews were posted within the two days following Ms. Ahn’s July 9, 2026 video, and within one day of the July 10, 2026 “went to mommy and daddy” post, which re-posted the link to the Firm’s Facebook page.
[49] The content of the comments also indicates that the fake reviews were induced by Ms. Ahn’s post. Her followers posted comments in response to her video, encouraging one another to leave fake reviews (“SHE CLOSED HER [FACEBOOK] REVIEWS LOLLL. GO TO GOOGLE REVIEWS,” “Get her gang!” “Go to gooooooogle we gotta bring that 4.7 rating down! Show the world who this zio real is”) and reporting that they were about to do so (“Heading there now,” “I got the assignment. I’m on it”) or already had (“already did,” Me too,” “Reviewed”). These statements were all made after the video was posted. No such statements were made before the video was posted.
[50] It is simply untenable, in the face of this evidence, to suggest the “review bombing” had nothing to do with the July 9 video.
[51] In any event, this submission does nothing to address the link between Ms. Ahn calling attention to Ms. Miller’s perceived Jewish or Israeli identity, on the one hand, and the horrific anti-Semitic comments to which she was then subjected, on the other. Again, I reject any suggestion that this conduct had nothing to do with the July 9 video. The video was how Ms. Ahn’s followers came to learn of Ms. Miller’s perceived Jewish or Israeli identity. The slurs and threats were made after the video.
[52] I therefore find that the irreparable harm requirement is met, on the record before me.
Balance of convenience
[53] Finally, I must assess the balance of convenience. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the question to be asked at this stage of the inquiry is which of the two parties will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, pending a decision on the merits (Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110, at p. 129).
[54] I find that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
[55] The injunction would require the removal of two posts, and prevent the publication of similar posts going forward, pending the interlocutory injunction proceedings. I acknowledge that Ms. Ahn’s legitimate interest in freedom of speech may be engaged in keeping the posts on her social media, and that that interest may be restricted with the granting of an injunction. However, any restriction on her freedom of speech is only until the interlocutory injunction proceedings. If Ms. Ahn succeeds at that stage, this restriction on her freedom of expression will be removed. As the courts have held in similar circumstances, in this respect, with the granting of the injunction, all Ms. Ahn loses will be time (M.S. v. T.V., 2022 MBKB 211, at para. 86).
[56] On the other side of the ledger sheet, as detailed above, Ms. Miller and the Firm have suffered significant and irreparable harm along several dimensions, and there is no end in sight unless and until the posts are removed. The interests of Ms. Miller’s husband and children, too, are clearly engaged.
[57] It is clear, on these facts, that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
Conclusion
[58] For the reasons above, I find that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong prima facie case of harassment in internet communications; that irreparable harm will result if the interim injunction is not granted; and that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. Accordingly, I grant the plaintiffs’ motion and the order they seek, as described at sub-paragraphs 57(a) and (b) of their factum. This includes an order that Ms. Ahn do the following, pending the interlocutory injunction proceedings:
a. remove the two posts, and any copies or republications of them, from all social media by 9 am on August 22, 2026;
b. refrain from making similar posts or expressions on social or any other media; and
c. refrain from publishing or causing to be published on any social or other media, any photograph, image, or identifying information concerning Ms. Miller or any of her family members; the plaintiffs’ addresses, contact information, or location information; links or directions to the plaintiffs’ Google Business profile, Facebook pages, or other review or contact channels; or any encouragements to review, contact, or “spam” the plaintiffs.
[59] The plaintiffs are asked to provide a form of order reflecting the relief sought in sub-paragraphs 57(a) and (b) of their factum, in Word, to my judicial assistant. However, this order shall take effect immediately, without issuance of the formal order.
[60] The plaintiffs are entirely successful on this motion and are entitled to their costs. The parties are strongly encouraged to work together to resolve costs. If they are unable to do so within 15 days, they may advise my judicial assistant, and I will set a timetable for the exchange of brief submissions.
[61] The parties have agreed to work out a timetable for the interlocutory injunction proceedings.
Parghi J.
Date: August 21, 2026