Online Takedowns & Platform Requests
Targeted notices to hosts and platforms citing terms of service and unlawful content rules; rapid removal where criteria are met. Jump to section
The coordinated use of legal and communications strategies to detect, respond to, and remediate harmful publications about a person or business, including platform policy takedowns, search de-indexing, privacy remedies, defamation proceedings, targeted injunctions, Norwich orders, and timely media responses that prioritize accuracy, accountability, and risk control.
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.
Targeted notices to hosts and platforms citing terms of service and unlawful content rules; rapid removal where criteria are met. Jump to section
De-listing requests and compliance with lawful orders to limit visibility in Google and other search engines. Jump to section
Time-sensitive counsel for press inquiries, responsible communication, and post-publication corrections. Jump to checklist
Targeted court orders to restrain publication, compel removal, and preserve evidence in urgent cases. Jump to section
Norwich orders to compel platforms and ISPs to disclose identities behind defamatory accounts. Jump to section
Negotiated statements and corrections with appropriate prominence to mitigate harm and clarify the record. Jump to checklist
Reputation is one of the most valuable assets for individuals, professionals, and businesses. In the digital era, reputational harm often occurs quickly, publicly, and in ways that are difficult to reverse. Online defamation, harmful social media content, and inaccurate reporting can circulate widely before the subject has had any opportunity to respond. Reputation management law in Ontario and across Canada involves both proactive and reactive strategies. This includes compelling takedowns of harmful content and ensuring timely, responsible responses to media inquiries.
Reputation management is not a single area of law but rather a combination of defamation law, privacy law, tort law, regulatory frameworks, and injunctive relief. Courts have long recognized that damage to reputation may have lifelong professional and personal consequences. For example, in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that reputation is integral to personal dignity and worth. Unlike traditional defamation claims, which can take years to resolve, reputation management strategies emphasize speed. The ability to obtain swift court orders, negotiate takedowns with online platforms, or issue strategic media responses can prevent long-term harm.
Once harmful content appears online, it is amplified by search engines, reposts, and digital archives. Even if a defamation lawsuit is successful, the content may remain accessible long after judgment. This is why takedown remedies have become central to modern reputation management. The following are the main avenues for the takedown of defamatory Internet content.
Most websites and social media platforms have terms of service or community standards that prohibit defamatory, harassing, or harmful content. A first step in reputation management is often to report the defamatory post or page to the platform and request its removal. For example, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., have reporting tools for harmful content, and web hosts can be contacted for content that violates their policies or is unlawful. A legal notice to the platform or website owner, explaining that the content is defamatory and violates terms, can sometimes lead to voluntary removal. Many platforms are concerned about legal liability or policy violations and will remove blatantly defamatory material when properly notified. This approach is usually faster and less expensive than court proceedings, though results vary by platform. (Each platform’s responsiveness and standards differ; we handle all communications with these providers to maximize the chances of prompt takedown.)
Even if the original content cannot be removed immediately, another tactic is to limit its visibility. Search engines like Google may de-index specific URLs in certain cases (for example, if the content is found to be unlawful). In Europe, individuals can invoke the “Right to be Forgotten” under data protection law to have personal information de-indexed. In Canada and the U.S., there is no broad “right to be forgotten,” but courts have begun to order de-indexing in egregious cases. A landmark example is Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., [2017] 1 SCR 824, where the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to globally de-list a website selling counterfeit goods. The Court did not view de-indexing as a serious free-speech issue in that context, noting it “does not require Google to monitor content… nor impose liability,” but simply prevents facilitating access to illegal material. Equustek set a precedent for takedown orders against search engines, essentially giving Google a mandate to “scrub” links, which can be extended to reputation-damaging content in clear-cut cases. However, without a specific court order or legal requirement, search engines tend to be reluctant to intervene in defamation disputes. We can assist in preparing formal requests to search engines for de-indexing of defamatory content where appropriate (for instance, if the content violates local law or court orders).
When the issuer of defamatory content won’t remove it and the harm is severe, the most powerful remedy is often a court-ordered injunction compelling removal. Courts recognize that an injunction can be an essential tool in defamation cases to halt ongoing harm and prevent future publication. For example, a judge can order a defendant to take down a defamatory post, refrain from repeating the libel, or even mandate that an Internet host remove or disable access to the content. In extreme cases, courts may order the destruction of defamatory material or prohibit a persistently defaming individual from publishing further statements about the plaintiff. For example, Barrick Gold Corp v. Lopehandia, resulted in a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from “disseminating, posting on the internet or publishing further defamatory statements” about the company.
– High Threshold for Defamation Injunctions: Because injunctions can affect freedom of expression, courts apply them carefully. Generally, defamation injunctions are granted only in the clearest cases. The plaintiff must show that the impugned statements are almost certainly defamatory (false and damaging) with no valid defence. In fact, the usual common-law test for injunctions (the American Cyanamid test) “has no application to libel” – instead, courts require that any reasonable jury would find the statement libellous. If there’s any real doubt or an arguable defence, courts tend to refuse an interim injunction. For instance, if the defamatory meaning is debatable or hinges on an interpretation (innuendo), an injunction will likely be denied. Similarly, if the defendant swears an intention to argue a defence like truth (justification) or fair comment, the court will usually not restrain publication unless it’s clear that the defence is bound to fail. This policy prevents courts from effectively deciding defamation cases prematurely, and avoids “prior restraint” on speech that might later be vindicated.
– Irreparable Harm and Urgency: In addition to a strong merits case, the plaintiff must prove that without an injunction they will suffer irreparable harm – harm that cannot be compensated by money damages. Given the courts’ concern for free speech, they often assume reputational harm can be compensated by a damage award after trial. Only particularly grave or widespread defamation (such as viral Internet publication) is likely to be deemed irreparable harm justifying an injunction. We leverage evidence of ongoing and exponential harm (e.g., number of views, shares, and search engine indexing) to demonstrate that each day of continued publication compounds the damage in a way that money alone cannot rectify. Courts have indeed acknowledged that the viral nature of online defamation may tilt in favour of injunctions, recognizing that content seen by countless people worldwide can cause lasting damage beyond monetary repair.
– Narrowly Tailored Orders: If an injunction is granted, it will be no broader than necessary to prevent the specific defamation. Courts typically tailor the order to the particular statements adjudged defamatory, rather than issuing a blanket gag on all speech about the plaintiff (except in the rare case where a defendant has proven incapable of any truthful comment). The goal is to remove the offending content and stop further publication of it, while not overreaching into lawful expression. For example, a court may order the removal of certain posts or pages and forbid the defendant from republishing those allegations, without barring the defendant from mentioning the plaintiff in other contexts that are not defamatory. We seek relief that carefully targets the libellous content while respecting this principle, increasing the likelihood that the court will approve.
– Cross-Border Enforcement: Online defamation often crosses borders (the poster or website may be abroad). Courts can still issue injunctions against foreign defendants who publish in our jurisdiction. Canadian courts have, on occasion, granted orders binding defendants abroad and even local ISPs or websites to take down content accessible here. While enforcing such orders internationally can be complex, they carry persuasive authority (and some tech companies will honour them, especially if the content violates their terms or local law). Our mandate in these circumstances is to obtain injunctions that are enforceable against foreign websites, or, alternatively, to employ creative approaches, such as obtaining mirror orders in the foreign jurisdiction when necessary.
It’s important to note that seeking an injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Courts require the plaintiff to act in good faith and be ready to proceed with a defamation lawsuit (injunctions are usually sought as part of an active case or a planned case). If a defendant is properly notified of the injunction application, they must clearly state any defences they intend to rely on; if they fail to do so, a court is more willing to grant the injunction by default. We ensure that our applications are supported by strong evidence (sworn affidavits with exhibits of the defamatory posts, proof of falsity where possible, etc.) to meet the stringent test for injunctive relief. When the case is overwhelming (e.g. the statements are outright false (or wildly improbable), causing serious harm, and the poster has no credible defence), courts will intervene to order a takedown in order to prevent ongoing injury to reputation.
A frequent challenge in online defamation is anonymity, as defamatory reviews or posts often originate from fake profiles or unknown individuals. It is difficult to sue or obtain a direct takedown injunction against an unknown “John Doe.” In such cases, our strategy may involve a Norwich Order (also known as an equitable discovery order) – a court order compelling a third party (such as an Internet Service Provider, social media company, or website host) to disclose the identity or contact information of an anonymous user. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted the growing use of Norwich orders in the online context for victims of anonymous defamation or fraud. For example, if someone is being defamed on an online forum by a pseudonymous user, we can apply for an order against the platform or ISP to reveal the IP address and subscriber info of that user. Courts will balance the anonymous poster’s privacy and free expression against the reputational harm to the victim. Generally, if we can establish a prima facie case of defamation (i.e., there is a valid case that the statements are defamatory and false), and no other means of identifying the culprit are available, and if the public interest in revealing the wrongdoer outweighs the individual’s privacy, the order will be granted. Canadian courts have been clear that privacy protections must yield when used as a shield for wrongful conduct, such as defamation. In A.B. v. Bragg Communications, the court ordered an ISP to unmask an anonymous harasser, emphasizing that once a prima facie defamation case is shown and no legitimate public interest justifies anonymity, “the public interest favouring disclosure prevails.” We handle the entire Norwich Order process: drafting the required pleadings (often including naming “John Doe” as a defendant in a defamation suit), gathering evidence of the anonymous post, and presenting the legal argument for disclosure. Once the poster is identified, they can be served with a lawsuit and an injunction if necessary, or often the mere fact of losing anonymity leads them to take down the content voluntarily.
If a defamation lawsuit proceeds to judgment in the plaintiff’s favour, courts will typically grant a permanent injunction as part of the relief. The standard for a permanent injunction is a bit different: the plaintiff must have won on the merits (proven the defamation) and show that damages alone are inadequate (which is usually evident if the defamer has persisted or if there’s risk of continued publication). Permanent injunctions are especially likely when the defendant has engaged in a relentless campaign of defamation and is likely to continue absent a court order. For example, in the Barrick Gold case, the defendant had repeatedly defamed the company online; the court not only awarded damages but also permanently enjoined the defendant from posting any similar allegations going forward. A permanent injunction can also compel the defendant to remove any remaining defamatory posts or websites they control after the trial. Our firm ensures that any settlement or judgment includes clear terms for takedown of offending content and non-repetition, and we have measures to follow up with platforms/search engines to honour court orders (courts can authorize service of the order on intermediaries to facilitate compliance). If a defendant disobeys an injunction, they can be found in contempt of court, facing fines or other penalties – a strong deterrent to further defamation.
Legal remedies sometimes need to be complemented with strategic public relations and search engine optimization (SEO) efforts. Indeed, reputation management isn’t solely about lawsuits; often, a combined approach is most effective. Some individuals and companies turn to professional reputation management firms to push down negative search results and highlight positive content. These companies may use techniques like creating new content, promoting favourable articles, and even tweaking website code to influence Google rankings. The idea is to bury the defamatory material on later pages of search results, where fewer people will see it. Such services are marketed as an alternative to costly libel litigation. However, they typically cannot remove the content entirely – they only suppress it. The methods are often proprietary “black box” techniques that promise to “expunge” negative reviews or news from your online footprint (at least from the first page of Google). We work in tandem with PR and IT professionals when needed – for instance, while we pursue legal takedowns, SEO strategies can mitigate damage in the interim. Ultimately, though, legal action provides the definitive solution by actually removing or de-indexing the offending material at its source (or holding the speaker accountable). Every situation is unique, so we advise clients on the most effective combination of legal and non-legal tactics to restore their reputation as quickly as possible.
A critical part of takedown strategy is engaging the intermediaries that host or index the offending content. Search engines, social media platforms, hosting companies, ISPs and domain registrars all control how content is accessed online, so we routinely work with them to limit or remove defamatory material. For example, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) has recently taken the view that search engines “collect, use or disclose” personal information when indexing webpages, meaning that PIPEDA may require them to consider requests to de-list search results that harm someone’s reputation. In practice, we submit formal takedown or de-indexing requests to Google, Bing, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms. Our legal notices cite not only Canadian law but also each platform’s own terms of service or community guidelines (which often prohibit harassment or unlawful content). Many companies have dedicated “legal removals” or “abuse” contacts to handle such requests. Because most hosts and platforms recognize the authority of court orders and legal demands, a well-crafted notice can be very effective. Indeed, industry surveys note that “websites, search engines, and companies… have policies in place acknowledging [the] authority” of valid court orders and will generally respect them. We leverage this by preparing detailed letters (often from counsel) explaining that the posted statements are defamatory and requesting immediate removal or de-indexing.
If the content resides in Canada, we can threaten legal consequences under our laws. If the content is hosted abroad, we still initiate contact (as large global platforms often have legal teams that operate internationally). For instance, Google maintains offices in Toronto and California; a simultaneous approach under both Canadian and U.S. law (citing Canadian defamation law in one notice and a local rule in another) can increase pressure. Where appropriate, we also point out any privacy or copyright issues raised by the material, since some posts may violate multiple rules. In short, working with the digital intermediaries, rather than only against the anonymous poster, can be more efficient and effective.
– Navigating Cross-Border Elements: A complicating factor is that many platforms and websites are based outside Canada, most commonly in the United States. Canadian court orders do not automatically bind foreign companies. Nevertheless, Canadian courts have shown willingness to assert jurisdiction over online defamation when there is a substantial connection here (for example, if the content is published or accessed in Canada). In such cases, we carefully frame our pleadings to emphasize how the tort “occurs” in Canada (the words are read here) and serve notices internationally under treaties (like the Hague Service Convention). We may also enlist U.S. counsel to send demand letters under American law or to pursue local injunctive relief in parallel. Often, global platforms respond to coordinated pressure: if a story is taken down under a Canadian court order, those same safeguards may be applied worldwide as a matter of corporate policy (the Supreme Court of Canada upheld this approach in Equustek). In practice, we find that clear legal arguments and formal notices (even from abroad) can persuade U.S.-headquartered companies to cooperate, especially when faced with a valid Canadian court judgment that we intend to enforce.
– Practical Tools: We also employ several concrete tactics to involve third parties:
Through all these channels – search engines, hosts, registrars, and international partners – we aim to choke off access to defamatory content, even if it cannot be removed instantly from its source. By leveraging platform rules and international cooperation, we often achieve significant takedowns or de-indexing long before trial, which helps limit ongoing harm while the case proceeds.
PIPEDA and De-Indexing
Privacy law has recently become a powerful tool for individuals seeking to repair their online reputation. In Canada, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) has been interpreted to apply to search engines, effectively giving Canadians a limited “right to be forgotten” even though no such explicit right exists in Canadian statutes. In 2025, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) concluded that search engine services like Google are subject to PIPEDA’s requirements – a position upheld by the Federal Court, which ruled that “every component” of Google’s search engine business is a commercial activity not exempt under any journalistic exception. This means that Canadians may, in certain situations, request search engines to de-index (de-list) specific webpages that contain their personal information, as a way to reduce the visibility of harmful or outdated content in search results.
De-indexing under privacy law focuses on limiting access to information rather than removing it at the source. The content in question remains on the original website, but if de-indexing is implemented, it will no longer appear in search results for the individual’s name, making it far less discoverable. For example, in a recent OPC case, an individual had been charged with a crime that was later dropped, yet old news articles about the charge still appeared whenever their name was Googled. The individual faced serious harms (physical assaults, lost jobs, and social stigma) because of these search results. The Privacy Commissioner found that in such circumstances – where outdated personal information linked to someone’s name causes a risk of serious harm to their safety or dignity – it is “inappropriate” for a search engine to continue linking that content. The OPC held that Google should de-index those specific URLs so that they no longer show up for name-based searches. Importantly, this remedy doesn’t scrub the content from the internet, but it does prevent the average person from stumbling upon it via a routine Google search of the individual’s name.
This development aligns Canada’s privacy law approach with the “Right to Erasure” found in other jurisdictions. Europeans, under the GDPR, have long been able to request search engines to suppress certain results, and Quebec’s new privacy law also provides a similar de-indexing right. Now, Canada’s OPC has confirmed that individuals have the right, under Canadian privacy law, to request de-indexing of personal information in search results when the reputational harm to the individual outweighs any public interest in that content remaining easily accessible. In essence, although Canada does not have a broad statutory Right to be Forgotten, the Privacy Commissioner’s findings interpret PIPEDA as providing a comparable (if narrower) protection. Any de-indexing decision requires a careful balance between the individual’s privacy and reputational rights and the values of freedom of expression and public interest in information. The OPC made clear that the question is not whether the information should exist at all, but whether it should be readily accessible through a name search in light of the harm it causes.
The OPC has outlined factors to help determine when de-indexing is warranted under PIPEDA:
No Public Figure/Inapplicable Public Interest: The person affected is a private individual (not a public figure or public official), and the information isn’t about a matter of public debate or importance. In other words, the content is more about the individual’s private life than about something the public has a legitimate interest in knowing.
Inaccurate or Outdated Information: The information is false, misleading, or no longer relevant due to the passage of time. For instance, it could be an old incident that no longer reflects the person’s current situation, or a criminal charge that did not result in a conviction and is years in the past.
Youthful Offences or Minor Status: The information pertains to events that occurred when the individual was a minor, which typically should not haunt someone into adulthood.
Passage of Time: A significant amount of time has elapsed since the information was published. Even information that was newsworthy long ago may deserve to recede into obscurity if it no longer serves a current public purpose.
If several of these factors are present, a “reasonable person” would likely find it inappropriate for a search query of the individual’s name to prominently return that damaging page. In such cases, the privacy law remedy of de-indexing can be an effective way to protect one’s reputation: the troubling content isn’t erased from the web, but it is delisted from name-based search results, thereby drastically reducing who will see it. As the Supreme Court of Canada observed in a related context, de-indexing is a proportionate measure because it only restricts access via search and “does not require Google to monitor content on the Internet, nor is it a finding of any sort of liability against Google” for the content. It simply prevents the search engine from further facilitating access to the offending material. This was echoed in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (see above), where the Court upheld a global de-listing order against Google to block illegal counterfeit sales, characterizing it as a minor intrusion on free expression needed to prevent harm. In that case, the judge noted the order was essentially just an extension of removing specific URLs (something Google already did voluntarily in other contexts) and did not engage core free-speech values.
From an online reputation standpoint, what PIPEDA-based de-indexing means is that outright deletion of content isn’t the only solution. Even if the web page or news article cannot be taken down at its source, Canadians may have recourse to make it less visible. By invoking privacy law, one can ask search engines to effectively “hide” the content from search results for their name. This is a significant development for those suffering reputational damage from old or irrelevant information. It provides a path to relief without waiting for a court-issued injunction (which can be costly and time-consuming). Indeed, the Privacy Commissioner’s 2025 findings recognize this de-indexing right as an important extension of privacy protection in the digital age.
It’s important to note, however, that this area of law is still evolving. Google has resisted the OPC’s recommendation in the above case and declined to de-list the articles voluntarily, taking the position that whether PIPEDA truly requires de-indexing is a matter for the courts to decide. As a result, the Privacy Commissioner marked the individual’s complaint as “well-founded” but unresolved, and signaled that his office is considering further action to enforce compliance. In other words, while the OPC has staked out this interpretation of privacy law, it may ultimately be up to the Federal Court or Supreme Court to solidify the scope of Canadians’ de-indexing rights. Nonetheless, the precedent has been set – the federal privacy regulator acknowledges a right to online reputation management through de-indexing, and Canadian courts have already shown a willingness to issue de-indexing orders in egregious cases like Equustek (even if for different legal reasons).
Privacy law now plays a pivotal role in online reputation management in Canada. If you’re facing persistent online content that unfairly tarnishes your name, PIPEDA offers a potential avenue to address it. We can assist individuals in preparing formal requests to search engines for de-indexing of defamatory or privacy-invading content, citing the OPC’s framework and any relevant court orders or laws. By leveraging these emerging privacy rights, it’s often possible to significantly diminish the visibility of damaging content, a practical compromise when outright deletion is not achievable. In the modern digital era, having this privacy law tool in your arsenal can make all the difference in restoring or protecting your reputation online
Not all reputation threats come from anonymous internet posts; often, journalists and media outlets are involved, especially in high-profile or sensitive matters. When a reporter contacts you (or your organization) with allegations or questions, perhaps about a potential scandal, lawsuit, or any damaging story, how you respond can significantly influence the resulting publication and your legal position. Our reputation management services include guiding clients through comprehensive and timely responses to media inquiries in sensitive situations. The goals are twofold: (a) to correct false information or provide your side of the story, thereby preventing defamatory inaccuracies from being published; and (b) to ensure media accountability by reminding journalists of their obligation to practice “responsible communication.”
Under defamation law, particularly since the Supreme Court’s decision in Grant v. Torstar Corp (2009) (which adopted the responsible communication on matters of public interest defence), journalists have a strong incentive to seek and include the subject’s perspective in any potentially defamatory publication. In fact, Canadian courts have said it is usually “inherently unfair” to publish a defamatory allegation without giving the target a chance to respond. Failing to do so can strip a media defendant of the responsible communication defence, unless there was a truly urgent public-interest need to publish without waiting. We leverage this principle to our clients’ advantage: when a sensitive inquiry comes in, we act quickly to engage with journalists on your behalf or alongside you, ensuring that your perspective is heard and documented.
Speed and Urgency
Media inquiries often come with tight deadlines. A reporter might say, “We plan to publish tomorrow, please provide any comment by 5 PM.” It’s vital to respond within that timeframe (or negotiate a slight extension if needed and if possible). Courts recognize that the “urgency of the publication” is a factor in whether a journalist acted responsibly. If a story is breaking news of great public importance, a journalist might justifiably give a shorter window for comment. However, what is “reasonable” depends on context. Case law illustrates this clearly: In one U.K. case (Yeo v. Times Newspapers), an experienced politician was given only a brief period to respond, and the court found this acceptable given the public-interest nature of the story and concern that a savvy subject might employ “delay tactics” to undermine the scoop. By contrast, in Turley v. Unite (2019), a libel defendant only gave the subject three hours to respond to serious allegations. The court held this was an “arbitrary and unreasonable” deadline, falling short of responsible journalism. What these cases tell us is that you may have as little as a few hours to respond when a negative story is brewing. Our team is on-call for crisis scenarios – we can mobilize quickly to draft a statement or arrange an interview, making sure your voice is part of the narrative. By responding promptly, you not only protect your reputation in the court of public opinion but also preserve your legal rights: if falsehoods are still published despite your timely corrections, you will be in a stronger position to claim defamation (the media can’t argue you stayed silent or that they couldn’t get your side).
Accuracy and Clarity of Your Message
When responding, it’s crucial to correct any false facts and present your evidence or perspective clearly. We often help clients prepare a written statement that can be quoted, or talking points if a live interview is needed. This might include providing documents or references to refute the allegations. A well-crafted response can sometimes convince a media outlet to alter or even kill a story if it exposes inaccuracies or legal risks. At the very least, it will ensure that your denial or clarification is included in the piece. From a legal standpoint, if a journalist has your contrary evidence and chooses to ignore it, their publication is much more likely to be deemed irresponsible. Conversely, including the gist of your response can mitigate harm and demonstrate balance. Our lawyers often work hand-in-hand with PR professionals in these moments, blending legal caution with an effective communication strategy.
Invoking the Responsible Communication Standard
We may remind the journalists (tactfully) of their obligations under the responsible communication doctrine. For instance, reporters should give a person a fair chance to respond to any defamatory accusations before publication. In Toronto Life v. Shtaif, an Ontario case, the Court of Appeal emphasized that media defendants “have an obligation to obtain the person’s side of the story” and at least put the main allegations to them for comment. Quoting such principles (without sounding threatening) can signal to the reporter and their editors that you are aware of your rights. If the journalist is working under legal counsel’s oversight (as many do for sensitive stories), they will recognize the implication: Publishing one-sided, unfounded allegations could invite a defamation lawsuit that they cannot easily defend. Thus, a firm yet collegial response can prevent the most egregious reputational hits.
Confidential and Off-the-Record Communications
In some situations, you may not want everything you say to a reporter to be quoted. We advise on the nuances of providing background information off the record or negotiating what is called a “reply in context” (giving a response that can be summarized without direct quotes). We ensure that sensitive information (which might be legally or strategically sensitive) is handled appropriately. However, we also caution that nothing is truly “off the record” unless explicitly agreed upon by the journalist, so all communications must be considered carefully. When appropriate, our lawyers can act as your spokesperson, communicating with the media on your behalf. This approach can be useful to avoid misquotes and to add a layer of legal framing to your response.
Documentation
We make sure to keep records of all media interactions, including emails, messages, and notes of phone calls, as these could become evidence in any future dispute. If a defamatory story runs despite our efforts, those records will show that the outlet was informed of the truth or at least put on notice of your position, undermining any defence that they “didn’t know” the facts or that they made sufficient efforts to get your side. This documentation can be vital if a retraction or legal action becomes necessary.
In summary, responding to media inquiries swiftly and strategically is a cornerstone of reputation management. It not only helps avoid or minimize reputational damage in the first place (since a balanced article is far less harmful than a one-sided hit piece), but it also places you in a stronger legal position. The law of defamation, through the responsible communication defence, incentivizes journalists to act responsibly, which directly translates to giving you a fair chance to respond. Our role is to make sure that opportunity is seized effectively. By doing so, we uphold media accountability: if a reporter chooses to ignore your timely and factual response, they do so at their peril. And if they do include your side, your reputation is at least partially defended in the court of public opinion.
Reputation management requires a proactive and multifaceted approach. The online and media landscape can be treacherous – false or defamatory content travels fast, but remedies exist to combat it. Our firm provides end-to-end services, from removing and scrubbing vicious posts from search results to serving as your crisis communications counsel when journalists come calling. We emphasize both the immediate relief (stop the bleeding by removing content, issuing corrections, etc.) and the long game of restoring and maintaining your good name.
In today’s “economy of reputation,” where businesses and individuals are constantly rated, reviewed, and discussed online, vigilance is key. We help clients monitor for reputational attacks and have a plan in place. If you or your company face a reputational crisis, be it an unfounded viral rumour, an investigative news story based on false allegations, or a smear campaign by a competitor, our team is ready to intervene with speed and precision. By combining legal expertise in defamation law with practical know-how in internet takedown mechanisms and media relations, we ensure that your side of the story is heard and that unwarranted attacks on your reputation are addressed swiftly and effectively.
Your reputation deserves protection, and the law is on your side to provide it. False online content can be removed or neutralized, and the media can be held to standards of fairness. With our Reputation Management services, you can navigate the contemporary mediascape with confidence that any defamatory fire can be promptly extinguished – preserving the trust and respect you’ve worked hard to earn.
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.
Reputation management law combines defamation, privacy, and injunctive relief principles to protect individuals and businesses from reputational harm. It involves removing or mitigating harmful content—such as defamatory posts, misleading media coverage, or inaccurate online information—through legal and strategic means. It’s both proactive and reactive, helping clients address crises quickly while also preventing long-term reputational damage.
Yes, in some cases. Platforms like Google, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn have terms of service that prohibit harmful or defamatory material. Formal takedown requests citing those rules can result in removal or de-indexing. In serious cases, Ontario courts can issue injunctions or de-indexing orders, such as in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., which set a precedent for ordering search engines to delist harmful content globally.
De-indexing removes a web page from search results without deleting the original content. This limits visibility, which is often enough to stop reputational harm from spreading. Under Canadian privacy law (PIPEDA), individuals may request de-indexing of inaccurate or outdated personal information. While Canada doesn’t yet have a formal “right to be forgotten” like in the EU, the Privacy Commissioner has recognized the importance of giving people some control over how their personal information appears online.
Privacy law allows individuals to challenge the unauthorized or harmful use of personal information online. For instance, if personal data or sensitive details are shared without consent, you may file a complaint under PIPEDA or pursue legal action. Courts and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner have increasingly recognized privacy rights as essential to protecting reputation, especially when digital information can be accessed indefinitely and used maliciously.
Respond carefully and strategically. Media inquiries often come with tight deadlines, and silence can leave a one-sided story unchallenged. A timely, accurate, and legally vetted response can prevent misinformation from spreading. Grigoras Law helps clients craft factual statements that protect both their reputation and legal position—especially when litigation is ongoing or anticipated.
If harmful content is causing immediate damage, you may seek an injunction, either interim or interlocutory, to stop publication or distribution. Courts consider whether there’s a serious issue, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience in your favour. In cases of clear defamation or privacy invasion, Ontario courts have granted injunctions to remove online posts or restrict further sharing.
Even if content is hosted abroad, Ontario courts can assume jurisdiction if the harm occurs in Ontario. Using the “real and substantial connection” test, courts have ordered takedowns and awarded damages for content accessible in Canada. Grigoras Law assists clients with cross-border enforcement and liaising with foreign counsel to ensure orders are respected internationally.
Most major platforms, including Google, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), LinkedIn, and X (formerly Twitter), have community standards or user-generated content policies that prohibit defamation, harassment, and false claims. If a post or review violates these terms, you can submit a removal request directly to the platform. Grigoras Law assists in preparing legally grounded takedown notices that align with these internal policies and demonstrate how the content breaches both platform rules and Canadian law, improving the likelihood of removal.
Reputation management isn’t only about reacting to harm—it’s also about prevention. Regularly monitoring your online presence, setting up Google Alerts for your name or business, and maintaining accurate online profiles can help detect issues early. Businesses should have a crisis communication plan that outlines who responds to the media, how statements are reviewed legally, and what tone to take when addressing the public. Grigoras Law helps clients design proactive frameworks to manage digital risks and maintain credibility even under public scrutiny.
From urgent takedowns and search de-indexing to timely media responses and targeted injunctions, Grigoras Law helps individuals and organizations act fast, contain risk, and restore trust. Tell us what’s happened and we’ll move quickly with a strategy that fits your goals.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service