While I think the Cotler ruling was kind of dumb, he did cite precedent for it at least. But I think these three rulings are all fairly reasonable, to be honest.
How it works is... basically "Anonymous" is a bunch of unknown people from who knows where, but exist somewhere out there on the interwebs, and have nothing to do with Parliament, but have made "general threats" of releasing already public and available records about Vic Toews less than private life (him being a public official), and this undefined group have somehow violated Mr. Toews Parliamentary privilege.
But to contrast that... the Conservative Party that sits in Parliament on the governing side, was NOT violating Liberal Irwin Cotler's Parliamentary privilege with their deliberate robo-call campaign of disinformation in Mr. Cotler's riding, falsely telling his constituents that he was going to resign. In fact the Conservative Party dismissed that as being a mere matter of freedom of speech!
And that is how Parliament works in Canada these days. :\
I'm particularly happy that the letter-drive aspect was ruled not a breach of privilege. He's a minister, so he must be considered responsible to the people of Canada as a whole and not just his riding, and there's no way he was interfered with in responding to the needs of his riding -- which is also in line with the Cotler ruling.
As for the ruling on Anonymous, they were threatening a member of parliament. While the threats may not have much teeth, I don't think that should be an acceptable form of political discourse in this country. And a breach of privilege ruling isn't exactly the most deadly thing to them anyways.
The vikileaks things is the most questionable, as I don't think use of house internet should really be considered use of house resources in the way the ruling claims. But it's in a grey area, so meh.