The court acknowledged the issues that this poses for journalists and publications, and held that the freedom of expression and information is "safeguarded by Article 11 of the Charter." It also held that it’s difficult for individuals to determine the legitimacy of content on the internet, but that they should be able to assess whether or not the content was uploaded by someone who a) isn’t seeking a profit, and b) that said uploader isn’t aware or can’t reasonably know that what they’re publishing is without consent. However, if someone posts a link knowing that the content is illegally placed on the web, and if they stand to profit from the traffic, they’re in violation of the law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation slammed the ruling, stating that it makes hyperlinking tantamount to copyright infringement, and that the case "threatens to cause turmoil for thousands if not millions of websites" by giving copyright holders new ammunition to bring lawsuits against publications. The ruling could also have the chilling effect of discouraging websites from posting hyperlinks to sources, out of the fear that they could be linking illegally posted content. 

These are two big IFs.

if someone posts a link knowing that the content is illegally placed on the web, and if they stand to profit from the traffic, they’re in violation of the law.

Still, not a good precedent to set.