Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation breaks down a surprising contract case involving the use of a thumbs-up emoji. A buyer sent contract terms for the sale of flax, and the seller responded with a thumbs-up emoji. The buyer believed this created a binding agreement. The seller disagreed and refused to deliver the flax. The court found that the emoji did indicate agreement and upheld the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, leaving unresolved questions about how modern digital communication fits into established legal principles.
Key Points Discussed
A seller responded to a buyer’s contract terms for a flax purchase with a thumbs-up emoji.
The buyer believed this constituted acceptance of the contract.
The seller argued there was no binding agreement.
The court ruled that the emoji signified approval and therefore acceptance.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, and the Supreme Court declined to grant leave.
Why This Case Matters
This is one of the first cases in Canadian law to directly consider whether an emoji can form the basis of a legally binding contract. As more communication takes place via text, messaging apps, and informal formats, the legal system will increasingly face questions about how to interpret symbols and shorthand.
Without consistent legal standards, these evolving forms of communication could lead to confusion, unintended obligations, and inconsistent decisions.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
The Supreme Court of Canada could have provided essential guidance on how to interpret modern communication in legal contexts. This case would have been an ideal opportunity to establish:
– Whether and when emojis can signify legal acceptance
– The role of context in interpreting pictorial symbols
– How courts should treat informal digital responses in formal legal disputes
– A uniform test for determining the intent behind non-verbal communication
Need for Clarity and Accountability
Communication today looks very different from when contract law was developed. Emojis can be interpreted in vastly different ways depending on the person, the culture, or the context. Without guidance from Canada’s highest court, trial judges and businesses are left to navigate these issues without a clear legal framework.
This case presented a timely and relevant opportunity to adapt traditional legal principles to a digital world—and the court passed on it.
Topics Covered
– Contract formation and modern communication
– Legal interpretation of emojis and symbols
– The evolution of contract law in the digital age
– Evidentiary challenges in non-verbal agreements
– The role of intent in informal exchanges
