01 Plain Language for clients and counsel
Written to be used.
Complex legal topics explained clearly for clients, professionals, and the public, and precise enough to actually inform the decisions that follow.
Plain-language explainers, case commentaries, and practice notes across civil litigation, commercial litigation, business law, appeals, and select cross-border topics. Read, then get in touch if your situation calls for it. The Information Portal is a working archive, not marketing copy. Each post is written by counsel at the firm and drafted to the same standard of care we apply to the files we handle.
What you'll find
Each post is written by counsel at the firm and drafted to the same standard of care we apply to the files we handle. The aim is practical: explain the doctrine, note what has changed, and point to what matters next. Long-form articles, case commentary, and short practice notes on the mechanics of procedure.
Complex legal topics explained clearly for clients, professionals, and the public, and precise enough to actually inform the decisions that follow.
Recent developments, new case law, and procedural changes, written up as they happen with the practical consequences drawn out plainly.
Actionable takeaways so readers can move from reading to decision-making, whether that is on their own, with in-house counsel, or with us.
The information provided on this site is for general informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Content may not be comprehensive or current at the time you read it. Consult a qualified lawyer on any specific legal question or matter. Grigoras Law is not responsible for any damage or loss arising from reliance upon this information.
Find what you need
Search the library of blog posts, case commentaries, and practice notes by keyword.
Latest content
What the platforms do with a complaint, why a court order is usually the only thing they act on, and the steps from the demand letter to the judgment that gets the content taken down.
Every day Canadians publish harsh opinions in Google reviews, Facebook posts, tweets, and blog posts. Most of it is lawful, because Canadian law contains a powerful defence built to protect exactly this kind of speech. But the fair comment defence is not automatic: it protects opinion, not fact, it requires accurate and disclosed factual foundations, and it can be destroyed by malice. This article explains how the defence works and how to write so that it applies to you.
Imagine being sued not because you did something wrong, but because you spoke up. SLAPPs, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are civil proceedings launched by powerful plaintiffs to silence critics through the cost and stress of litigation, not to recover genuine damages. Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act gives defendants a powerful tool to have these proceedings dismissed at an early stage. This guide explains what SLAPPs are, how the anti-SLAPP motion test works, what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, and what someone facing this kind of lawsuit can do about it.
If someone has wronged you, there is a window of time within which you can sue — and once it closes, it closes for good. Ontario’s limitation periods framework sets a two-year basic deadline running from discovery, and a fifteen-year ultimate cap. But the rules are more nuanced than they look. This guide explains when the clock starts, when it can be paused, how specific claims like defamation, personal injury, and contract disputes are treated, and what happens across the country.
Most defamation cases involve something written. But spoken words can be just as damaging to a reputation, and in the right circumstances they are fully actionable. This article explains slander, how it differs from libel, when proof of actual financial loss is required, and when the law dispenses with that requirement entirely.
A false review on Google Maps can reach thousands of people and stay there indefinitely. The person behind it may be anonymous and untraceable. Can you sue Google instead? Recent Canadian decisions in Thorpe v. Boakye and Jeffery v. Almusslat suggest the answer is increasingly yes, where the platform had notice, had control, and chose not to act.
The ruling in Kulyk v. Guastella reminds us of the importance of timely dealing with civil defamation claims, regardless of concurrent criminal proceedings. Justice Myers’ decision, grounded in the interpretation of the Limitations Act, emphasizes an objective standard for initiating defamation claims. Potential plaintiffs must therefore remain vigilant and proactive in protecting their legal rights against defamatory accusations, even amidst criminal proceedings.
Defamation is one of the most frequently litigated torts in Ontario. This article explains the three-element test, what makes a statement defamatory under Canadian law, how courts assess reference and publication, and where the line falls between actionable defamation and protected expression.
In Ontario, defamation claims can involve various types of damages, with aggravated damages being one of the critical compensatory mechanisms. Aggravated damages are awarded to provide additional compensation when the defendant’s conduct has caused further harm to the plaintiff beyond the initial defamation.
In the digital age, the dynamics of defamation have evolved significantly, particularly with the rise of the Internet and social media platforms. The traditional principles of defamation law, which were primarily localized, now face new challenges in determining where a defamatory statement published online has caused harm and where legal action should be pursued.
Consent can be a powerful defence in defamation cases. If someone agrees to a defamatory statement, they can’t later claim defamation. This can be explicit, like signing a contract, or implied through actions, such as repeating a defamatory remark publicly. Understanding this legal concept can help you navigate situations where consent might impact your rights.
Defamation law often treads a fine line between protecting individual reputation and upholding freedom of expression. In this intricate legal landscape, the defence of justification, or truth, plays a pivotal role.
For now, Thorpe v. Boakye serves as a pivotal case in understanding the evolving legal landscape around digital platform liability. It highlights a significant divergence between Canadian and U.S. legal systems in handling online defamation. Canadian courts appear more open to considering platforms like Google as publishers and thus potentially liable, whereas U.S. law, under the CDA, leans heavily towards protecting these platforms from such liabilities.
In the world of false statements and their legal repercussions, malicious falsehood stands out as a unique tort focusing on economic harm stemming from disparaging remarks about one’s property or goods.
The freedom of the internet allows for uninhibited self-expression. While many embrace this freedom to share positive stories, ideas, and feedback, others exploit it to spread malicious rumors or make derogatory comments without facing immediate consequences. The cloak of anonymity can embolden such individuals, making the internet a potential hotbed for defamation.
The recent appeal in Park Lawn Corp. v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd. to the Court of Appeal of Ontario has thrown open the floodgates of discussions on the costs, efficiency, and economic implications of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motions.
When the invisible line of respect between individuals in society is crossed through defamatory comments, the law provides a remedy through defamation lawsuits. However, these cases are not black-and-white. Their outcomes can be influenced by the actions and behaviour of involved parties – both before and after the publication of the defamation. In Ontario, this scrutiny of conduct plays a pivotal role in shaping legal outcomes.
Understanding defamation law, especially when considering the potential damages, is no small feat. The nuances and complexities can be overwhelming, yet having a clear comprehension of what the damages entail is invaluable for plaintiffs and defendants alike. In Ontario, defamation law encompasses three key types of damages: Aggravated, Special, and Punitive Damages.
There is an ever-present tension between the right to freedom of speech and the need to protect individuals and corporations from defamation. In Ontario, Canada, the Protection of Public Participation Act 2015 (Ontario PPPA) aims to tip the balance towards the former, providing a robust defence for those who choose to express their views on matters of public interest.
When we talk about “parliamentary privilege,” we refer to a set of rights and protections that enable lawmakers at the federal and provincial levels in Canada to perform their duties without fear of being legally liable. These privileges safeguard the democratic principles Canada is built upon, ensuring each branch of government respects the others’ roles.
In defamation cases, an apology may play a crucial role in the assessment of damages. However, it is important to note that courts lack the jurisdiction to order defendants to apologize. The existence of an apology, the sincerity of the defendant, and the extent of the publicity given to the apology are factors that courts consider when determining damages.
Fair comment is one of defamation law’s most important defences. It protects opinion on matters of public interest, but only when the underlying facts are true, the statement is recognizable as comment and not fact, and the opinion is one that a person could honestly hold. This article explains every element of the defence, the role of malice, and what the standard actually means in practice.
Most people focus on whether their defamation claim is strong. But in Ontario, whether you can even bring the claim depends on a six-week statutory notice requirement that must be met before filing. Miss it, and the action is gone regardless of its merits. This article explains exactly what the notice requirement demands, how discoverability affects the clock, and how the rules differ across Canada.
Over time, Canadian provincial legislation regulating defamation has been updated to incorporate modern communication methods. However, since most of this legislation does not explicitly address the Internet, judges are often required to draw parallels between Internet communications and traditional media forms, such as newspapers and broadcasts, that are covered by the legislation.
A defamation claim does not automatically succeed. Canadian law provides defendants with a range of defences — from simple denial to truth, privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication — that can defeat a claim entirely. This article explains each defence, what must be established, and what can defeat it.
When it is time to move from reading to resolving, Grigoras Law handles civil, commercial, and appellate matters across Ontario, and select cross-border files. The right counsel changes the calculation. For plaintiffs, that means a practical assessment of viable causes of action, a realistic view of recovery prospects, and a clear read on urgent interim relief if the facts support it. For defendants, it means pleadings assessed, defences triaged, and a strategy that keeps the file from consuming your business while it runs.
A contract has been breached, a partner has acted against your interests, a director has crossed a line, or money is at risk of disappearing. You want to understand what can be recovered, what urgent relief is available before trial, and whether the case is worth running.
Start plaintiff intake → Defendant intakeYou have been served with a statement of claim, an oppression application, or a demand that threatens proceedings. You need the pleadings assessed, the defences triaged, and a strategy that keeps the file from consuming your business while it runs.
Start defendant intake →