Background
The decision arose in response to three motions for summary
judgment and a motion for default judgment brought by the
plaintiffs in four actions, all of them relating to the individual
defendant s internet harassment. Justice Corbett aptly
described the facts of the case:
These cases concern extraordinary campaigns of malicious
harassment and defamation carried out unchecked, for many years, as
unlawful acts of reprisal. [The defendant], has used the internet
to disseminate vicious falsehoods against those towards whom she
bears grudges, and towards family members and associates of those
against whom she bears grudges. [The defendant] is destitute and
Regardless of social media policies establishing expectations for employee conduct online, online harassment is still a prevalent issue in the workplace as well as in society more.