Defamation Claims & Defences
Libel, slander, fair comment, truth, responsible communication, privilege, and damages. Jump to section
The combined field addressing false or damaging statements and coordinated reputation risks, encompassing libel, slander, injurious falsehood, privacy remedies, and strategic content removal. This practice blends litigation tools — including injunctions, Norwich orders, and anti-SLAPP motions — with targeted takedowns, search de-indexing, and media response planning to protect personal, professional, and commercial standing across Ontario.
Grigoras Law advises individuals, professionals, and organizations on reputation management across Ontario. We pursue targeted takedowns of defamatory and harmful online content, prepare formal requests for de-indexing where appropriate, obtain urgent injunctions and Norwich orders, and coordinate with platforms and search engines to enforce removal. We also manage time-sensitive media responses to ensure accountability and responsible communication, helping clients limit reputational damage and preserve long-term credibility.
Libel, slander, fair comment, truth, responsible communication, privilege, and damages. Jump to section
Terms-of-service removals, host-level notices, and policy-based enforcement across platforms. Jump to section
Interlocutory restraints, takedown orders, preservation, and Norwich relief to identify posters. Jump to section
Malicious falsehoods causing quantifiable loss; product disparagement and slander of title. Jump to section
Intrusion upon seclusion, disclosure of private facts, false light, and misappropriation of personality. Jump to section
Right-of-reply, corrections and retractions, and post-publication accountability packages. Jump to section
Defamation and reputation management law address how individuals, professionals, and organizations protect themselves against false, damaging, or invasive publications. The modern reputational landscape moves at the speed of the internet — a single post, article, or search result can reach thousands within moments, and its impact can persist indefinitely. Whether the issue arises from a viral social media post, an inaccurate news report, or the republication of sensitive information, the legal and strategic response must be swift, precise, and well-calibrated.
In Ontario and across Canada, defamation law remains rooted in long-standing common law principles, while modern reputation management strategies extend far beyond the courtroom. They encompass a full spectrum of tools: urgent injunctions and takedowns, Norwich orders to unmask anonymous posters, requests to de-index content from search engines, and formal responses to journalists to ensure fair and responsible communication. Increasingly, these remedies overlap with privacy law, intellectual property law, and regulatory frameworks such as PIPEDA and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, requiring coordinated legal and reputational strategy.
Grigoras Law acts in both offensive and defensive roles, representing plaintiffs seeking redress for reputational injury as well as defendants facing allegations of defamation or privacy violations. The firm’s work includes addressing false statements made online or in the press, mitigating reputational risk through evidence-based negotiation, and pursuing equitable relief where damages alone cannot undo the harm. Through litigation and strategic communication alike, Grigoras Law helps clients regain control of their narrative and restore their professional and personal standing.
Defamation law in Canada safeguards individuals and organizations against false statements that unjustly harm reputation. Rooted in the principle that reputation is integral to human dignity, the law recognizes both libel (written or published defamation) and slander (spoken defamation). Whether statements appear in a news article, blog post, online review, or social media thread, the same core legal test applies: the words must be published to a third party, refer to the plaintiff, and tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.
Once publication is established, falsity is presumed, placing the burden on defendants to justify or defend the statement. Key defences include:
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Grant v. Torstar Corp. (2009 SCC 61) for how this defence is applied in the Canadian context.
The rise of social media and user-generated platforms has transformed the law’s practical application. Courts now routinely address issues such as anonymous postings, mass republication, and cross-jurisdictional access. In Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, [2004] O.J. No. 2329 (C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the global and enduring harm of online defamation, emphasizing that digital communications are “instantaneous, seamless, interactive, blunt, borderless, and far-reaching.”
Modern cases, such as Pritchard v. Van Nes (2016 BCSC 686) and Clancy v. Farid, 2023 ONSC 2750, illustrate how viral falsehoods can destroy reputations overnight. Courts have responded with significant general and punitive damages, and in certain circumstances, injunctions or takedown orders requiring the removal of defamatory content.
Platforms and intermediaries occupy a complex position. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, confirmed that hyperlinks are not publications, emphasizing that they merely reference, rather than republish, defamatory material. However, hosts and search engines may still be required to comply with court-ordered takedowns or de-indexing.
Interlocutory injunctions in defamation matters are extraordinary and granted sparingly, reflecting the balance between protecting reputation and upholding freedom of expression. A plaintiff must show that the impugned words are manifestly defamatory, impossible to justify, and cause ongoing harm. Only in the clearest of cases will speech be restrained prior to trial.
In appropriate cases, Grigoras Law pursues urgent court orders, including:
Norwich orders, compelling platforms or ISPs to disclose identifying information about anonymous users.
Anton Piller orders, preserving digital evidence at risk of destruction.
De-indexing orders, directing search engines like Google to remove defamatory URLs.
Interim injunctions, halting ongoing publication when damages are insufficient to repair the harm.
While defamation protects personal and professional reputation, the related tort of injurious falsehood addresses malicious false statements about property, products, or business interests that cause economic loss. This includes false reports that drive away customers, undermine investor confidence, or prompt regulatory investigations.
Unlike defamation, injurious falsehood requires proof of falsity, malice, and actual pecuniary loss. In Cana International Distributing Inc. v. Standard Innovation Corp., 2016 ONSC 7197, aff’d 2018 ONCA 145, the court differentiated between reputational injury (defamation) and specific financial losses caused by a false report to Health Canada (the latter forming the basis for injurious falsehood).
Closely tied to modern reputation management are privacy torts, particularly intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. Following Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, Ontario recognizes a common law right of action for intrusion upon seclusion, protecting individuals against intentional, significant invasions of privacy. Other provinces, including British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan, have enacted statutory privacy torts, making such conduct actionable without proof of damage.
In the digital context, privacy breaches often intertwine with defamation — for example, where private or confidential information is published alongside false allegations. Remedies may include injunctions, damages for distress, and in regulatory contexts, proceedings under Canada’s federal privacy statute, PIPEDA.
Effective defamation and reputation management extends beyond litigation. It often requires strategic coordination with media outlets, online platforms, and search engines. This includes:
Preparing takedown and de-indexing requests grounded in evidence and policy language.
Coordinating with journalists to correct or update inaccurate publications.
Issuing rights-of-reply or public statements to mitigate damage.
Advising on the balance between legal action and strategic silence.
Grigoras Law assists clients with rapid response frameworks, particularly when immediate action is needed to prevent further dissemination. Our firm’s experience spans defamation litigation, injunctive relief, online content removal, and privacy regulation, ensuring that every response is proportionate, lawful, and designed to restore reputational integrity.
From defending against false allegations to removing harmful online content, Grigoras Law acts quickly and precisely. We pursue anti-SLAPP relief where appropriate, obtain injunctions and Norwich orders, coordinate platform takedowns and search de-indexing, and provide time-critical media guidance—tailored to your goals and risk profile.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service