Hi friends,

Did you know an “apology” is legally protected in many Canadian provinces, and can’t be taken as an admission of guilt or liability? “Apology Acts” are meant to encourage people to express regret or sympathy without fearing that their words will be used against them in court.

But the same can’t be said about the “👍” emoji, the use of which might lead to some very real legal consequences. If you find yourself replying with a “👍” to an offer, you might be on the hook for whatever you ‘agreed’ to.

In today’s email:

1. Recent developments: “👍” = acceptance in Sask. court; doctor negligent for failing to diagnose; and Law firm to pay $739,649 to creditor of insolvent client. 

2. Technology: How Google’s move out of Canadian news might impact you.

3. International: Big decisions from SCOTUS.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

“👍” may be enough to accept a contract: In a summary judgment from the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan, a judge found that a thumbs-up emoji constituted acceptance of a contract to sell 87 metric tonnes of flax.

But before you go scouring your texts to see what you’ve unknowingly agreed to, you should know this decision hinged on a longstanding business relationship between the parties—a relationship that involved many other similar text-message agreements. The specific relationship and previous interactions meant there was good reason to conclude that the parties mutually understood the 👍 to constitute legal acceptance.

Two ER doctors found negligent for failing to diagnose a patient: The plaintiff initially sought medical attention for leg “numbness”, but was misdiagnosed by the defendant doctors with sciatica. 10 days later, she was correctly diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome and underwent surgery.

The Ontario Superior Court noted that the doctors failed to probe into the patient’s complaint of “numbness in the groin area”, a key symptom of the condition. By failing to question the numbness, the Court found that the defendants fell below the appropriate standard of care, and were therefore negligent.

Law firm on the hook for $739,649 to creditor of insolvent client: the Ontario Superior Court ordered Owens Wright LLP to pay $739,649 to a creditor of its insolvent client, ruling the firm colluded with its client to fraudulently prioritize itself as a creditor over other creditors.

The decision is one of few recent applications of s. 3 of the Assignments and Preferences Act.

TECHNOLOGY

How Google’s move out of Canadian news might impact you.

On the heels of a similar announcement by Meta, Google said Thursday that it will strip Canadian news publications from its services in response to the Online News Act.

Here’s how it may impact you:

1. Google will remove links to Canadian news publications from its search engine, news aggregator and discovery product, so you won’t see any Canadian news content indexed on its platform.

2. You will still be able to access news content about Canada from international outlets, which Google is not blocking links to. Networks like the BBC, New York Times and the Guardian should still be available to Canadians.

3. To access news from Canadian outlets, you will have to either visit the web page of the news organization directly or use another search engine or aggregator that indexes Canadian news.

Canadian’s can expect these changes to happen once the Act comes into effect, which likely won’t be until the end of the year.

INTERNATIONAL

Big Decisions from SCOTUS.

Affirmative Action in college admissions no more: The US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that colleges cannot consider race in the admissions process, a decision that will have deep and far-reaching effects on students across the country.

The court concluded that affirmative action admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Admissions committees may still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race has shaped their life, for example, through their response to discrimination. But the court made clear that this discretion does not support an affirmative action admissions program.

Biden’s student debt relief plan struck down: SCOTUS struck down the President’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for an estimated 43 million eligible borrowers, a plan that would have costed the government a staggering $400 billion.

The Court concluded the president needs “clear congressional authorization” to direct the cancellation of such a debt, which was not present in this case.

What this means for students:

1. While there is no immediate impact, when student loan repayments roll around in October after the three year pause for Covid, students won’t be able to count on the promised debt relief.

2. Biden alleges his administration is already working to enact a different student debt relief program under a different law.