I had no idea you were so close to Guilbault's legal team.
You could just as easily frame this as a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money as a result of a petty troll masquerading as a journalist.
Maybe it was a charter violation, maybe it wasn't. We won't know because it was never taken to trial. Even so, I have a very difficult time believing blocking someone on a private social media network violates any part of the charter, no matter the parties involved. Can you imagine if there was any legal precedent to prevent one person blocking another person on platforms like Twitter (never X), Facebook, Instagram, etc.? Geist is a smart guy but after reading that article I still don't believe there's any compelling case that any person has the right to view a minister's Twitter (never X) account or messages. Any and all pertinent information relating to the office is available and discoverable through a variety of other official means and Levant is free to engage with the minister's office through those means, even posting it second-hand on Twitter (never X). These platforms are not governmental services.
It takes two sides to come to a settlement. Whether the particulars of this order is customary is hard to answer because this is a very unique case. As I understand, this was a consent order agreed to by both parties and submitted to the court to be approved and the Judge signed off on it.
It is more likely that both saw individual benefits to settle and move on. Guilbault no longer has to deal with this protracted nonsense, and Levant gets to puff his chest as the faux civil rights champion the gullible believe him to be.
I agree with Jim Turk's comments in the National Post article, and that probably all that comes out is that public figures are advised to 'mute' rather than 'block' individuals on Twitter (never X)
https://nationalpost.com/news/rebel-...twitter-battle