June 25, 2026

By David Brunk, civil litigation attorney

Read the complaint

Lamas-Richie v. Kane tests U.S. legal shield against Canadian injunction on free speech grounds.

Nik Lamas-Richie, the former partner of NHL player Evander Kane's estranged wife Anna Kane, is challenging a foreign court order in a California federal court, seeking to void an injunction that restricts Anna from speaking about Kane or his family. This case scrutinizes the SPEECH Act—a U.S. legal shield against enforcing foreign defamation judgments—questioning whether it can block such a prior restraint, which would be deemed unconstitutional under American law. The proceedings highlight critical issues about transnational free speech norms, the boundaries of comity, and the U.S. perspective on foreign orders that potentially suppress speech about public figures.

The Canadian Injunction: A Restriction on Anna Kane’s Speech

A foreign court has issued an injunction prohibiting Anna Kane from publishing, posting, or communicating any statements deemed defamatory, disparaging, or invasive of privacy concerning Evander Kane or his family. This order extends to social media, interviews, and court filings, effectively muting Anna's expressions regarding her personal life with Kane, including their divorce and domestic disagreements. Nik Lamas-Richie, who was not a party to the foreign case, faced legal challenges for disseminating information through his platforms. This prompted his proactive litigation in the U.S. to prevent the enforcement of what he perceives as an overreaching measure. Lamas-Richie’s core question pertains to U.S. constitutional principles: Does the injunction constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint as established in Near v. Minnesota and Nebraska Press Ass’n?

The SPEECH Act’s Two-Pronged Test: Does the Canadian Judgment Meet U.S. Standards?

Prong 1: Foreign Law Must Provide "At Least as Much Protection" as the First Amendment (28 U.S.C. § 4102(a)(1))

Canada's defamation laws are notably different from those in the U.S., lacking a public figure doctrine which generally requires plaintiffs to demonstrate only negligence rather than meeting the high bar of actual malice as established by New York Times v. Sullivan. The injunction's prohibition on "disparaging" speech may be overbroad when contrasted with American constitutional expectations, likely failing the strict scrutiny applied to speech restrictions in the U.S. The plaintiff argues that Canadian law does not align with the speech protections offered by the First Amendment, thus the SPEECH Act should prevent the enforcement of such foreign judgments.

Prong 2: Would the Defendant Have Been Liable Under U.S. Law? (28 U.S.C. § 4102(a)(2))

The heart of the matter in this prong is determining Evander Kane's status as a public figure. Should Kane be considered a public figure, then according to Sullivan, any alleged defamatory statements by Anna Kane would necessitate proof of actual malice. The foreign ruling, however, may not evaluate malice, and the injunction would struggle to meet U.S. standards unless evidence shows Anna acted with a reckless disregard for truth. The SPEECH Act places the onus on Kane to affirmatively demonstrate adherence to U.S. legal standards—a challenging task given the injunction's prior restraint and overbroad nature.

The Prior Restraint Problem: Why the Canadian Injunction Collides with U.S. Law

The concept that "prior restraints are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights" underscores the complex legal landscape faced by the Canadian court's restriction on Anna Kane’s speech. In American jurisprudence, such blanket prohibitions might be almost automatically assumed unconstitutional, accentuating how the foreign order seems irreconcilable with established U.S. protections designed to favor open discourse even when discussing widely known figures like Evander Kane.

The next procedural step involves assessing whether the California federal court will grant Lamas-Richie the declaratory relief sought, declaring the foreign judgment unenforceable in the United States. The hearing will likely focus on the significance of free speech principles in the U.S. legal tradition versus international comity considerations. Given the case's complexities, potential motions to dismiss or requests for summary judgment are anticipated as the parties seek a judicial determination over these conflicting legal doctrines.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.