Supreme Court won’t hear thumbs-up emoji case involving Saskatchewan farmer
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Digital Subscription
One year of digital access for only $205*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/07/2025 (434 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada has given a thumbs-down to hearing a legal case involving an emoji.
The country’s highest court dismissed an application by farmer Chris Achter to appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan.
The Appeal Court upheld a verdict that found a thumbs-up emoji met signature requirements and was a legally binding agreement between Achter and Kent Mickleborough, a grain buyer with South West Terminal.
In 2021, Mickleborough sent a text of a contract to Achter for a delivery of flax, and the farmer responded with a thumbs-up emoji.
Achter didn’t deliver the product, and the company took him to court for breaching the contract.
The Supreme Court says costs are to be given to the grain company.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025.