You read the title correctly. Here is the article on the case.
From the opinion:
The common law has developed in these modern times to hold that emails are sufficient to constitute in writing and signed requirements (Embee at paras 48-55; Buckmeyer Estate Re, 2008 SKQB 141, [2008] 9 WWR 682; Love v Love, 2011 SKQB 176, [2011]11 WWR 614 and Love v Love, 2013 SKCA 31, 359 DLR (4th) 504). I have already referred to Justice Scherman’s findings in Quilichini where he found clicking on the “I agree icon” constituted an electronic signature in a go kart waiver document (Quilichini at para 6). The court in that case decided that the clicking on the “I agree icon” meant the customer was agreeing to contractual terms that “can be expressed by touching and clicking on an appropriately designed icon or place on a computer screen” (Quilichini at para 10). I find therefore there is case authority for the use of email and the use of electronic non-wet ink signatures to identify the person signing and to establish the person’s approval of the document’s contents.
The issue that remains is: is a 👍 emoji good enough to meet the requirements of the SGA in the unique circumstances of this case?
I find that the flax contract was “in writing” and was “signed” by both parties for the purposes of the SGA. There is no dispute that Kent electronically signed on behalf of SWT. The new twist is: did Chris’s 👍 emoji constitute a “signature”?
In my opinion the signature requirement was met by the 👍 emoji originating from Chris and his unique cell phone (agreed upon statement of facts para. 2; cross-examination of Chris T6.7-T6.10; T28.6-T28.20) which was used to receive the flax contract sent by Kent. There is no issue with the authenticity of the text message which is the underlying purpose of the written and signed requirement of s. 6 of the SGA. Again, based on the facts in this case – the texting of a contract and then the seeking and receipt of approval was consistent with the previous process between SWT and Achter to enter into grain contracts.
This court readily acknowledges that a 👍 emoji is a non-traditional means to “sign” a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a “signature” – to identify the signator (Chris using his unique cell phone number) and as I have found above – to convey Achter’s acceptance of the flax contract.