Defamation law in Ontario offers individuals and entities a legal recourse when their reputations are unjustly harmed by false statements. In essence, defamation involves the making or publishing of false communications that tend to lower someone’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. Defamation comprises both libel (often tied to written or permanently recorded expressions) and slander (commonly oral or otherwise transient).
A fundamental tension underpins defamation law: on one side stands the protection of individual reputation, while on the other lies freedom of expression—a right safeguarded under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Courts strive to reconcile these interests by imposing liability for wrongful falsehoods while preserving space for robust public debate, fair commentary, and honest reporting. To make a successful claim, plaintiffs typically must show three core elements: (1) a statement was defamatory, (2) it referred—explicitly or implicitly—to the plaintiff, and (3) it was “published” or communicated to at least one third party. Once these prerequisites are met, liability will attach unless the defendant establishes a recognized legal defence that justifies or excuses the publication.
Defamation claims can arise in numerous settings, including social media posts, news articles, opinion pieces, internal corporate memos, workplace discussions, or televised broadcasts. A statement can be defamatory even if it appears as a suggestion or insinuation. Consequences for a liable defendant may range from an order to pay damages (monetary compensation) to a court injunction prohibiting further dissemination. Yet Ontario law also recognizes that certain statements must remain free from the chilling effect of defamation suits, such as fair comment on matters of public interest or carefully vetted investigative journalism. As a result, the law includes a range of defences, each reflecting a policy choice about when it is preferable to shield speech, even if reputational harm occurs.
Nature of a Defamatory Statement
A defamatory statement is one that would cause a reasonable person to think less of, despise, or ridicule the subject. The question is whether an ordinary, right-thinking individual, reading or hearing the words in their natural context, would view them as harmful to the plaintiff’s reputation. Courts have recognized that defamatory meaning can be direct (“You are a thief”) or indirect through innuendo or implication (“There’s missing money, and we all know who’s responsible”).
Determining whether a statement is defamatory involves examining its “sting.” This “sting” must be harmful to reputation, though minor insults or name-calling may not necessarily suffice if they lack serious consequences. Additionally, context matters. A seemingly innocuous phrase in one setting can be defamatory in another if it implies disreputable conduct or moral failings.
Must Refer to the Plaintiff
The impugned statement must refer to the plaintiff, either by explicit identification or by inference. It is not mandatory for the plaintiff to be named outright—defamation can arise if listeners or readers recognize that the statement targets the plaintiff due to surrounding circumstances or identifying details. For instance, describing “the manager of a certain local bank” in a small community might effectively point to a single individual if there is only one bank manager in town. In deciding whether a statement refers to the plaintiff, courts ask whether a reasonable person would make the connection. If no such connection exists, the claim fails on this element.
Publication means communicating the defamatory statement to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Without third-party communication, a statement—no matter how offensive—cannot found a defamation action. Publication can be direct, as with a broadcast, newspaper article, social media post, or blog entry. It can also be indirect, such as emailing a defamatory remark to a colleague who then forwards it, expanding readership.
Importantly, publication in the digital age can involve complexities beyond traditional media. A single tweet or Facebook post can quickly reach a wide audience, magnifying reputational harm. Liability attaches even if the defendant did not intend for extensive circulation; once the statement is accessible to others, it is “published.” Certain nuances, such as accidental publication or intermediary platforms (like ISPs), may introduce additional defences or immunities, but these often require specialized legal arguments. Generally, if the plaintiff can show that at least one person besides themselves received and understood the defamatory expression, the publication element is satisfied. Any disclaimers by the defendant about “not meaning to publish” rarely negate the fact that publication occurred.
Ontario law accommodates multiple defences that can shield defendants from liability even if the plaintiff proves a prima facie case. Each defence mirrors an aspect of public policy: preserving open discussion, encouraging truthful reporting, or upholding societal duties. Below is an overview of the most prominent defences, arranged in a new order to highlight different contextual rationales.
Qualified privilege arises when the defendant has a moral, social, or legal duty to communicate information to someone who shares a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. Classic examples include reference letters for employees, workplace incident reports, or communications among shareholders regarding a company’s affairs. The law wants to encourage candid sharing of relevant facts without fear of defamation suits, as long as the speaker acts honestly and without malice.
Malice is the pivotal factor that can undermine qualified privilege. If the defendant spreads harmful statements out of spite, personal vengeance, or reckless disregard for the truth, the defence evaporates. Courts look for evidence that the defendant distorted facts or harboured ill-will unrelated to the legitimate purpose of the communication. Qualified privilege thus stands or falls on the speaker’s good faith. When it is upheld, it provides a complete defence—enabling people to speak freely in contexts where openness is vital. Once malice is proven, however, the privileged shield collapses.
Justification, commonly known as the truth defence, holds that an otherwise defamatory statement cannot result in liability if it is substantially true. This defence underscores the fundamental principle that defamation law aims to shield individuals from false attacks, not from accurate—albeit harmful—information. If the defendant demonstrates the essential veracity of the allegations, the plaintiff’s claim fails outright.
In practice, the defendant must prove the key elements or “sting” of the statement are correct. Minor inaccuracies will not necessarily defeat justification if the central allegations remain substantially true. For instance, if a defendant claims the plaintiff embezzled $100,000 but the proven sum is $95,000, the variance might be insignificant. Conversely, if the allegations are wildly off-mark, or if the defendant’s primary assertion lacks evidentiary support, the defence falls short. Successful reliance on truth often demands thorough investigative records, robust witness testimony, or relevant documentation. The legal burden is on the defendant to establish the factual truth, which can be challenging if evidence is elusive or the events in question are complex. Nonetheless, once the court finds the material aspects of the statement are accurate, the plaintiff cannot prevail in a defamation action.
The responsible communication defence is a modern legal doctrine crafted to protect individuals—often journalists or commentators—who publish on matters of public interest after conducting due diligence. While it is closely tied to media reports, community activists, bloggers, and other public communicators may also invoke it. The essential notion is that the law should not penalize someone who researches a topic responsibly, seeks relevant input (including the subject’s perspective), and fairly presents a story—even if some details turn out to be incorrect.
Several factors guide the court’s evaluation of “responsible” conduct: the importance and urgency of the matter, the reliability of sources, efforts made to verify information, the prominence given to any allegations, and whether the publisher promptly addressed inaccuracies. This framework, rooted in the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach, recognizes that absolute certainty can be difficult to achieve, particularly in fast-moving or investigative contexts. Provided the defendant’s methods align with the standard of responsible newsgathering or commentary, they may avoid liability for unintentional factual errors. At its core, this defence preserves a free, robust exchange of ideas on issues that concern the public, without imposing an impossible standard of absolute accuracy in every detail.
Certain legislative acts confer statutory privilege for reports on official proceedings or documents, thereby shielding accurate accounts from defamation claims. Parliament and provincial legislatures have deemed it in the public interest that citizens have unfettered access to reports of legislative debates, municipal meetings, judicial proceedings, or quasi-judicial inquiries. If the publication contains a fair and accurate summary of these official documents or proceedings, the defendant can invoke statutory privilege to defeat a defamation claim.
However, statutory privilege generally hinges on meeting specified conditions. For instance, the report must not deviate materially from the actual record; it should not distort or misrepresent what transpired or was said. Some statutes also impose obligations, such as a requirement that the defendant issue a retraction if mistakes are discovered, or clarify any partial quotes. If the publisher meets these criteria, the public interest in widespread, unimpeded reporting takes precedence over an individual’s reputational concerns. This defence’s rationale echoes broader democratic values: citizens can evaluate governmental or regulatory processes best when accurate information is widely disseminated.
Absolute privilege offers an impenetrable shield in a narrow class of situations where free and unfettered communication is deemed vital. Common contexts include parliamentary debates, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and certain high-level executive functions. The hallmark of absolute privilege is that it applies even if the speaker acted maliciously or knowingly disseminated falsehoods.
For example, statements made on the floor of the Ontario Legislative Assembly enjoy full protection, ensuring members speak without fear of civil liability for defamation. A similar immunity extends to participants—judges, lawyers, witnesses—in judicial settings, enabling them to comment on evidence or argue positions candidly. Courts reason that although this broad immunity might sometimes protect unscrupulous statements, the greater public good lies in safeguarding frank discourse in crucial forums. Nonetheless, absolute privilege is carefully limited to recognized official contexts. A witness repeating the same allegations outside the courtroom or a politician defaming a private citizen in a press release typically lose absolute privilege. Its absolute nature in the enumerated scenarios is justified by the overriding need for complete candour in those specific areas of governance and adjudication.
Fair comment protects opinion-based statements about matters of public interest. Unlike justification, which focuses on proving factual truth, fair comment applies to expressions of subjective judgment, criticism, or commentary, provided that (1) the comment is on a matter of public interest, (2) it is based on true or widely known facts (or privileged statements), (3) it can be recognized as an opinion rather than a statement of fact, and (4) it is made honestly, without malice.
The defence allows critics, journalists, and everyday citizens to voice strong, even hyperbolic, opinions on issues like politics, art, and social policy. Courts consider whether a person could reasonably hold the view, given the facts. If so, the comment may be protected, even if it is extremely unfavorable or unpopular. Evidence of malice (a hidden or vindictive motive) can nullify this defence, because defamation law draws a line between genuine expression of viewpoint and malicious attempts to harm another’s reputation. By endorsing the fair comment doctrine, Ontario’s legal framework recognizes the need to foster healthy public discourse, especially regarding topics that affect the broader community.
Consent invalidates a defamation claim by establishing that the plaintiff either explicitly or implicitly agreed to the communication of the alleged defamatory statements. If the plaintiff willingly permitted the defendant to publish, broadcast, or circulate these remarks, they cannot later claim harm from what they essentially authorized. Written or contractual authorizations are the clearest form of consent, but implied consent can also arise, for example, when someone agrees to an interview or a news feature and knowingly provides negative details about themselves.
Nonetheless, consent is confined to the scope of what the plaintiff intended to allow. If the defendant exceeds that scope—by adding unapproved content, distorting the statement, or disseminating it far more broadly than agreed—the defence may not apply. A court will review whether the plaintiff truly understood the nature of the publication and if they genuinely accepted the risk of potential reputational damage. Consent obtained through coercion or misrepresentation is also invalid. When legitimate consent is proven, liability disappears because defamation law protects individuals from unconsented reputational injuries. No wrongdoing exists if the plaintiff consciously sanctioned the very publication they later denounce.
Ontario’s defamation legislation imposes notice requirements and tight limitation periods, particularly for actions involving news media (like newspapers or broadcasts). Plaintiffs typically must provide a timely written notice to the publisher or broadcaster before commencing a defamation lawsuit, often within a few weeks or months of first learning about the defamation. This procedural step serves multiple objectives: alerting the defendant, permitting them to offer retractions or corrections, and potentially reducing the scope of litigation if the defendant immediately remedies the harm.
Furthermore, the limitation period for filing a defamation claim is generally shorter than in other civil matters. Plaintiffs who miss these statutory deadlines risk having their actions barred. Conversely, prompt notice and swift initiation of a lawsuit protect the integrity of evidence and allow more efficient dispute resolution. Courts tend to enforce these timelines firmly, emphasizing the policy that defamation disputes should be resolved while the context and statements remain fresh in everyone’s memory. For both plaintiffs and defendants, awareness of applicable deadlines can prove decisive in shaping the course and outcome of a defamation case.
When a defendant is found liable for defamation, damages function to restore the plaintiff’s reputation, compensate for mental distress, and potentially punish egregious conduct. Ontario courts often award general damages even if the plaintiff cannot show a specific monetary loss, recognizing that reputational harm is inherently intangible. The extent of damages depends on the content’s seriousness, the breadth of its publication, and whether the defendant exhibited malice or repeated falsehoods despite knowing they were untrue.
Other damage categories may come into play. Aggravated damages compensate for additional harm caused by the defendant’s particularly callous or high-handed behaviour—such as refusing to retract harmful statements or aggravating the plaintiff’s distress. In rare cases, courts impose punitive damages to denounce and deter extremely malicious or reckless conduct. The higher the recklessness or spite, the more likely a punitive award becomes. Courts weigh multiple factors, including the defendant’s motive, the impact on the plaintiff’s emotional well-being, and whether the defamation was systematic or persisted over an extended time. In sum, Ontario’s approach to damages aims to balance restitution for the plaintiff with fair punishment for those who willfully or egregiously harm another’s reputation.
Apologies and Retractions
Apologies or retractions can mitigate damages and demonstrate the defendant’s regret. Issuing a meaningful retraction, especially through the same channel and with comparable prominence as the original statement, may convince the court that the defendant has acknowledged the wrongdoing. Likewise, a sincere, prompt apology can reduce ongoing reputational harm and ease the plaintiff’s distress. However, the apology must be timely and comprehensive. A belated or perfunctory statement might fail to mitigate damages significantly, particularly if the falsehood has already spread widely.
Judges consider whether the apology or retraction genuinely serves to repair or limit reputational damage. If it is clearly an attempt at minimal compliance, lacking in genuine remorse or explanation, its effect on damages may be minimal. Nonetheless, from a pragmatic standpoint, a well-crafted apology—combined with a retraction—remains one of the most straightforward avenues for a defendant to show accountability, reduce hostility, and possibly achieve a swifter resolution.
Injunctions in defamation cases are an equitable tool that can stop continued or repeated publication of defamatory material. Ontario courts traditionally hesitate to issue injunctions prematurely, as blocking speech can encroach on fundamental freedom of expression rights before liability is conclusively determined. Yet when the plaintiff provides strong evidence that the statements are clearly defamatory, that there are no valid defences, and that irreparable harm looms, the court may grant an interlocutory injunction.
Post-trial, once the defendant’s liability is established, a permanent injunction can prevent renewed circulation of the same false statements. Such rulings often arise in cases where the defendant is obstinately repeating the defamatory remarks, jeopardizing the plaintiff’s efforts to move on. The remedy underscores that once a court has deemed a statement libellous and lacking defence, preserving its continuing circulation serves no legitimate interest. Although injunctions are not guaranteed, they remain a powerful strategy when monetary compensation alone seems insufficient to protect reputational integrity—especially in an era where online posts can remain accessible indefinitely.
Ontario’s anti-SLAPP provisions, embedded in s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, address “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” These are lawsuits often filed to silence or intimidate individuals or groups who speak out on matters of public interest—such as environmental concerns, political debates, or social activism. The legislation allows courts to dismiss such cases early if the defendant proves (1) the expression relates to a public interest issue, and (2) the claim lacks substantial merit or causes an undue chill on free debate.
Once a defendant raises the anti-SLAPP motion, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that their claim has real merit and that the harm caused by the alleged defamation is significant enough to override the public interest in free expression. If they fail, the court can terminate the lawsuit, potentially awarding costs and damages to the defendant for undue hardship. By allowing quick dismissal of groundless suits, the anti-SLAPP framework preserves open discussion of civic affairs while maintaining recourse for legitimate defamation complaints. Plaintiffs with genuinely meritorious claims can still proceed, but they must demonstrate a legitimate basis, preventing misuse of defamation as a cudgel to stifle debate.
Slander generally refers to defamatory statements expressed orally or through other transient forms, as opposed to libel, which typically involves written or more permanent media. However, Canadian law often treats slander and libel similarly, with both requiring proof of a false statement, a defamatory meaning, a reference to the plaintiff, and publication to a third party. Where they differ is that slander often necessitates proof of actual damages—monetary or otherwise—unless it meets certain established exceptions known as “slander per se.”
Slander Per Se
In slander per se cases, the law presumes damages, just as it does for libel, so the plaintiff need not prove a specific loss. Common categories of slander per se include:
Allegations of a Crime: Accusing someone of a criminal offence.
Imputations of Loathsome Disease: Claiming they suffer from a contagious or “shameful” illness.
Attacks on Professional or Business Reputation: Stating they are unfit or incompetent to carry on their vocation.
Imputations of Unchastity or Serious Moral Failing (Historically): Albeit used less often in modern contexts, it remains recognized in case law.
The rationale is that these sorts of allegations are so inherently harmful that the plaintiff’s reputation is presumed to suffer. Consequently, even if the statement was uttered briefly or to a small audience, the law spares the plaintiff from the burden of proving tangible damage. At the same time, defendants who raise recognized defences—such as truth or qualified privilege—can still escape liability despite the presumption of harm. If none of those defences apply, a finding of slander per se entitles the plaintiff to at least nominal damages, with the potential for aggravated or punitive damages depending on the circumstances.
If you have been defamed or face a defamation claim, call on Grigoras Law. We proudly represent individuals, businesses, and organizations across Ontario in all manner of defamation disputes. Our firm is dedicated to offering:
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
Under Canadian law, including Ontario jurisprudence, defamation traditionally splits into two categories: libel and slander. Libel generally concerns written or otherwise permanent forms of defamatory expression—such as books, newspapers, online posts, or even images—and is often “actionable per se,” meaning damage to the plaintiff’s reputation is presumed. In contrast, slander involves transient expressions like spoken words or gestures, which usually require proof of actual harm unless they fall within specific “slander per se” categories (e.g., alleging a crime, imputing a loathsome disease, or attacking one’s professional competence).
This distinction arose historically because written or recorded statements could be circulated more widely and have lasting impact, thus meriting a presumption of damage. Oral remarks, though still harmful, were viewed as ephemeral and reaching fewer people, so courts traditionally demanded evidence of real loss—unless the allegations were so inherently serious that damages should be presumed. In modern practice, especially with the rise of audio and video recordings, the line between libel and slander can blur. Nonetheless, the traditional rules persist, influencing whether damages must be proven and how courts assess seriousness. Understanding these differences is important when deciding how best to pursue or defend a defamation claim.
“Publication” in defamation law requires that a defamatory statement be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. Historically, this meant showing that a letter, newspaper article, or conversation was overheard or read by a third party. In the digital age, the concept has grown more complex. An online post—even if shared briefly—can reach a broad audience within seconds, thereby intensifying reputational harm. Canadian courts generally consider material posted on social media or websites to be “published” as soon as it becomes accessible to other internet users.
This can lead to multiple layers of potential liability, such as when someone retweets a defamatory tweet, comments on a shared post, or forwards an email. Each act of sharing or republishing can constitute a new instance of publication, potentially subjecting each participant to liability. However, certain defences or immunities might apply if the user is merely a platform or an innocent disseminator without knowledge of the defamatory content. Overall, in Ontario (and throughout Canada), courts strive to apply well-established publication principles to these emerging contexts, asking whether a reasonable third party could have accessed and understood the harmful statement. As long as a third person has indeed read, seen, or heard the communication, “publication” is deemed satisfied for the purposes of a defamation claim.
For a successful defamation claim, the defamatory statement must be shown to “refer” to the plaintiff, whether by direct naming or indirect identification. Under Ontario law, courts ask whether an ordinary, reasonable reader or listener, aware of the surrounding context, would interpret the statement as pointing to the plaintiff. This does not require explicit naming; it can occur through implication, descriptive details, or contextual clues that lead people to connect the statement with the claimant.
Proving reference often involves demonstrating that people who heard or read the remarks believed the plaintiff was the target. This might include testimonies from colleagues, friends, or members of the community who recognized the plaintiff based on certain personal traits, job titles, or other identifiers. For instance, if the speaker refers to “the manager of that single pharmacy in town” and there is only one manager, it is easy to see how the audience would interpret that statement. In more complex scenarios—such as large group defamation—courts assess whether a particular individual can still be singled out. Regardless of the mechanism of reference, it suffices that listeners or readers, applying common sense, would believe the words apply to the plaintiff. If no one familiar with the circumstances would associate the statement with the plaintiff, the claim typically fails on this element.
Yes. In Canadian defamation law, every person who participates in publishing or republishing a defamatory remark can be held liable if there is no valid defence. Even if you are not the originator—say, you merely quote or repost the statement—you may bear legal responsibility. Courts reason that repeating a defamation can further damage the plaintiff’s reputation, especially in the era of viral social media content. This principle applies whether you are forwarding a message, retweeting an accusation, or verbally telling others about a rumour you read.
That said, defences might exist. For instance, “innocent dissemination” sometimes applies to those who distribute materials in a purely mechanical capacity (such as certain internet service providers) without knowledge of the defamatory content. Additionally, a user who removes the statement promptly upon learning it is potentially defamatory might argue they acted responsibly. But if you add commentary endorsing or reiterating the defamation, you risk stepping outside such defences. The crucial point is that each republication can aggravate harm, so the law seeks to discourage casual sharing of rumors or allegations that could injure someone’s reputation. Therefore, caution is advised whenever repeating potentially harmful statements, particularly online.
Ontario imposes strict notice requirements and limitation periods to ensure defamation disputes are addressed promptly. If the defamatory statement appears in a newspaper or broadcast, the plaintiff typically must serve the publisher or broadcaster with written notice of the alleged libel within a short window—often days or weeks from the time they learn about the statement. This procedural requirement gives the publisher a chance to investigate, publish a correction or apology, or clarify any misunderstanding before litigation escalates.
The general limitation period in Ontario for commencing a civil claim, including many defamation actions, is typically two years from the date the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known about the harm. However, defamation can have nuances such as the “discoverability” rule, which might modify when the clock starts running—particularly where the statement remains online or only came to the plaintiff’s attention later. In practice, counsel needs to confirm precise timelines under the Libel and Slander Act for media-related defamation, as the statutes often detail shorter notice periods and mandatory forms of service. Missing these deadlines can be fatal to a claim, so plaintiffs who suspect they have been defamed should act swiftly to preserve all available legal remedies.
The responsible communication defence emerged in Canadian law to strike a better balance between defending reputation and safeguarding freedom of expression, particularly on matters of public interest. Rooted in the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings, this defence is available to journalists, bloggers, advocacy groups, and anyone who publishes on issues of significant public concern—provided they adhere to responsible reporting practices.
Courts weigh several criteria in assessing whether the defendant acted responsibly. These include the public importance of the story, the urgency or timeliness of the report, the reliability of the sources consulted, and whether the publisher attempted to verify allegations by seeking the plaintiff’s side of the story. If the defendant demonstrates they took meaningful steps to verify facts and present them neutrally, occasional or unintentional errors might not result in liability. This approach recognizes that absolute accuracy is not always feasible, especially under time constraints, and that robust public discourse can involve uncovering controversies that may ultimately prove partially incorrect. By shielding those who make a genuine effort to investigate and report fairly, responsible communication upholds the principle that the public is better served by honest discussion of critical issues, rather than a climate of self-censorship induced by fear of defamation suits.
Promptly issuing an apology or retraction can help reduce the reputational harm inflicted by a defamatory statement and may lower the potential damages awarded by a court. Under Ontario defamation law, an apology does not necessarily absolve liability, but it demonstrates the publisher’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing and willingness to rectify errors. In turn, this can persuade the court that the defendant is acting in good faith and may warrant a reduction in damages—especially if the apology or correction is published with similar visibility as the original defamatory statement.
Timing is critical: an apology offered soon after the defendant learns of the falsehood carries more weight than one made weeks or months later. Courts examine whether the defendant used language that unequivocally retracts the false claim and expresses sincere regret, rather than a superficial “if you were offended” type of statement. Additionally, defendants must ensure the retraction or apology reaches the same audience that encountered the original publication; a buried correction in an obscure location is less likely to mitigate harm. While apologies can be strategic tools for resolution—sometimes defusing conflicts before they become lawsuits—parties should discuss specifics with legal counsel to craft a remedial message that meets all procedural and substantive requirements under defamation statutes.
Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, introduced into the Courts of Justice Act, are designed to prevent powerful entities or individuals from silencing legitimate public discourse via defamation suits. SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” and these actions often aim to drain a defendant’s resources or scare them into retracting statements on environmental, political, or community concerns. Anti-SLAPP provisions enable a defendant to move for early dismissal of a lawsuit if the speech in question involves a matter of public interest.
When the motion is heard, the defendant must demonstrate that the expression relates to a broader social, political, or economic interest that affects more than just the parties involved. If successful, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that their defamation claim has genuine merit and is not simply intended to chill free expression. Moreover, the plaintiff must show that the harm suffered justifies overriding the public interest in open debate. If the court finds the case lacks sufficient merit or the alleged harm is minimal, it can dismiss the suit outright. Defendants may then recoup costs and even receive damages for the time and money spent defending a frivolous or vexatious action. This early-dismissal mechanism thus provides a critical safeguard for those engaged in legitimate advocacy or critique in Ontario, fostering an environment where citizens can speak out on pressing public matters without undue fear of retaliation.
Though less common today, criminal libel remains part of the Canadian Criminal Code, while civil libel arises under provincial and common law rules that provide remedies such as damages or injunctions. Criminal libel involves statements considered so injurious to public order or individuals’ reputations that the state prosecutes the offender, potentially imposing fines or imprisonment. Civil libel, by contrast, is initiated by the injured party seeking compensation and does not carry criminal penalties.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms influences both domains, particularly through Section 2(b), which protects freedom of expression. Courts have interpreted this protection to require that any limitations on speech—whether imposed by criminal law or civil liability—be justified by a clear need to safeguard another significant interest, such as reputation or social peace. For criminal libel, prosecutors face a high burden to demonstrate the public interest is served by a criminal conviction. In civil cases, defendants often raise Charter values to argue that imposing liability would unduly chill free expression. While historically each domain developed independently, modern jurisprudence ensures that the Charter’s free-speech principles guide how judges interpret and apply both criminal and civil libel provisions, insisting that any curtailment of speech be balanced against the fundamental interest in open dialogue.
Slander per se refers to certain oral (transient) defamatory statements deemed so inherently damaging that the plaintiff need not prove specific harm to reputation or finances. This stands in contrast to regular slander claims, where actual damages—such as financial losses or emotional distress—must typically be demonstrated. In Ontario, and broadly throughout Canada, slander per se covers specific categories: accusations of criminal activity, imputations of a contagious or “loathsome” disease, statements attacking one’s professional competence, or imputations of serious moral failing.
When a claim qualifies as slander per se, the law presumes damages. This means that once the plaintiff establishes the statement falls into one of these categories, the court treats reputational harm as automatic, simplifying the plaintiff’s burden significantly. By contrast, standard slander actions require direct evidence of harm—proof that employment was lost, earnings declined, or relationships suffered. Despite that distinction, slander per se can still be defended against using standard defences like truth, qualified privilege, or fair comment. Libel, meanwhile, is written or permanent defamation, often presumed to cause damage without requiring the plaintiff to prove specific losses. So, while slander and libel share many legal concepts, slander per se marks a particular zone of oral defamation where reputational harm is presumed by virtue of the subject matter’s severity.
Yes. Under Canadian law, including Ontario jurisprudence, corporations and other business entities can bring defamation actions when false statements harm their reputations. A corporation’s “good name” can be just as critical as an individual’s reputation, influencing public perception, sales, and commercial partnerships. In principle, the same elements apply: the plaintiff (here, the corporation) must show the statement was defamatory, published, and referred to it. If these elements are met, the corporation may seek damages for harm to its goodwill or standing in the marketplace.
Unlike individuals, however, corporations often face scrutiny when seeking general damages for “loss of reputation.” Courts sometimes expect more concrete evidence of economic harm or other measurable impact, particularly if the claim goes beyond symbolic compensation. While defamation law traditionally presumes damage in libel cases, corporations often bolster their claims by demonstrating lost contracts, declines in revenue, or reputational setbacks. This is not an absolute rule—corporations need not always prove precise monetary loss to succeed, especially if the statement is clearly libellous—but evidence of a direct or probable business injury can strengthen their position. In essence, corporate defamation suits focus on protecting the commercial entity’s reputation and brand integrity, while recognizing that intangible damage alone may sometimes be harder to quantify.
In Canadian defamation law, aggravated damages and punitive damages both exceed basic compensation for reputational harm, but they serve distinct purposes. Aggravated damages address the additional emotional harm, distress, or indignity inflicted on the plaintiff by the defendant’s conduct. If the defendant acted in a high-handed, reckless, or harassing manner—perhaps by persisting in the defamation even after being told it was false, or by deliberately humiliating the plaintiff in a personal context—the court may award aggravated damages to reflect that heightened injury. This category enhances the total damage award to acknowledge the egregious manner in which the defamation was carried out.
Punitive damages, on the other hand, focus primarily on punishing and deterring the defendant’s misconduct. They are awarded when the defendant’s behavior is so malicious, wanton, or oppressive that mere compensation for the plaintiff is insufficient to express the court’s condemnation. By imposing an additional financial penalty, courts aim to discourage similarly extreme or deliberate wrongdoing by the same or other would-be defendants. While both aggravated and punitive damages can coexist in a single case, courts exercise caution in awarding them, reserving these heightened sums for situations where a defendant’s actions markedly exceed typical negligence or carelessness.
Suing for defamation can be more complicated when the perpetrator’s identity remains unknown—such as with an anonymous blog post or a social media handle. Nevertheless, Canadian and Ontario courts recognize the need for plaintiffs to unmask anonymous wrongdoers. One route involves a Norwich Pharmacal Order (or similar “John Doe” proceeding), which requires an innocent third party (often an internet service provider, website host, or social media platform) to disclose information that may reveal the defendant’s identity or location.
Courts tend to balance the plaintiff’s right to protect their reputation against privacy and freedom-of-expression considerations. If the plaintiff shows a strong prima facie case that the statement is defamatory and they cannot identify the user otherwise, the court may order relevant records or data be released. Once armed with that data—like an IP address or email account details—the plaintiff can amend the lawsuit to name the real individual. It is important, however, to follow proper procedures and present clear evidence of why the information is necessary and how it will further the legitimate defamation action. While unmasking anonymous defendants can add costs and complexity, it allows plaintiffs to pursue legal remedies and deter future anonymous attacks that seriously harm reputations.
Yes. Although many people think of defamation actions as courtroom battles, there are multiple alternatives to a full trial. One common approach is negotiation between the parties—or their counsel—to reach a settlement, potentially including a retraction, apology, or financial compensation. An agreed-upon corrective statement in a widely circulated medium may alleviate the harm caused by the defamatory remarks and help the plaintiff move forward without the cost and stress of prolonged litigation. In return, the plaintiff might waive any further legal claims.
Mediation is another option, where a neutral mediator facilitates dialogue in a confidential setting. This allows both sides to explore creative remedies (such as publishing clarifications or removing certain online statements) that a court might not specifically order. It also helps keep legal fees under control by speeding up resolution and reducing courtroom appearances.
Arbitration is less common for defamation but can be viable if the parties have a pre-existing agreement or both voluntarily opt in. Its structured, private process can yield a binding outcome without the formality of a public trial. Ultimately, these alternative dispute resolution methods offer ways to preserve reputations, contain costs, and maintain control over the outcome, rather than leaving decisions entirely to the judiciary.
Grigoras Law provides smart, strategic counsel in civil litigation, business law, and appeals across Ontario.
Smart, Strategic Counsel.
GRIGORAS LAW - Civil Litigation and Business Lawyers Toronto © 2025 All Right Reserved
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
