Grigoras Law's Toronto defamation lawyers built this page for the person who has just read or heard something defamatory about themselves, for the publisher who has just received a notice, and for lawyers outside the field. It is general information, computed in your browser from the dates you enter under the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Legislation Act, 2006. It does not say whether you have a claim, and it is not legal advice; confirm the dates with a lawyer you have retained before relying on them.
Three (3) facts drive every date; namely, the kind of publication, the day the words first came to your knowledge, and the day they were published. The notice is counted in weeks, the limitation period in months and the general period in years, each under its own rule in the Legislation Act, 2006, and a last day that falls on a Sunday or a statutory holiday moves to the next day that is not one.
Enter the day the publication came to your knowledge and the dates appear here, each with the provision it comes from and the count behind it. Where a last day falls on a Sunday, a holiday or, for the claim, a day the court office is closed, the page shows the statutory day and the day the Legislation Act, 2006 extends it to; where the last day for the notice is a Saturday, which that Act does not treat as a holiday, it says so.
Knowledge, with diligence. The notice period runs from the day the libel came to your knowledge, and the limitation period from the day you knew or could have known of it by reasonable diligence (Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co., 2013 ONCA 405, at ¶ 42). Once you know the gist, you must act diligently to learn the rest (Watson v. Southam Inc. (2000), 189 D.L.R. (4th) 695 (Ont. C.A.); Macdonald v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2011 ONCA 652). The dates above assume that the day you entered is that day.
Each publication has its own clock. A print article and its later online version carry separate periods, each running from knowledge of that publication (Shtaif, at ¶¶ 32-37), and a series of articles may call for a notice of each (Thiele, Tighe and Cook, § 3.03[4]). Continued availability online does not restart the clock (John v. Ballingall, 2017 ONCA 579, at ¶¶ 33-35).
Ontario publishers only. Subsection 5(1) and s. 6 apply only to newspapers printed and published in Ontario and to broadcasts from a station in Ontario (s. 7), and the defendant who relies on them must prove that it is one (St. Lewis v. Rancourt, 2015 ONCA 513, at ¶ 8). A publisher outside Ontario is governed by the two (2) year period, and by the law of the place where it publishes, which may have its own notice rule.
The publisher's own conditions. A newspaper has the benefit of ss. 5 and 6 only if the names of its proprietor and publisher and the address of publication appear at the head of the editorials or on the front page (s. 8(1)), and a broadcaster loses it if, asked by registered letter for the owner's or operator's name and address, it does not answer within ten (10) days after receiving the letter (s. 8(3)). Do not count on either; serve the notice.
Every intended defendant. The notice must be served on each person you intend to sue for the newspaper or broadcast libel, including the reporter, the editor and a non-media source who was quoted or who issued the release (Watson v. Southam Inc.; Weiss v. Sawyer (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 526 (Ont. C.A.); TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), 2012 ONCA 87, at ¶¶ 26-33). The source's own words outside the newspaper or broadcast are a separate publication, governed by the two (2) year period (Chuvalo v. Worsoff, 2022 ONSC 4079, at ¶ 116).
The online question. Whether a website, blog, podcast or social-media post is a "broadcast" is unsettled. The Court of Appeal has declined to decide it (St. Lewis v. Rancourt, at ¶ 7), and the Superior Court has refused, on the evidence before it, to extend the notice requirement to tweets, blogs, WhatsApp messages and e-mails (Levant v. Day, 2017 ONSC 5956, at ¶¶ 43-48, affd 2019 ONCA 244; Nanda v. McEwan, 2019 ONSC 125 (Div. Ct.), at ¶¶ 80-84; Marcellin v. LPS, 2022 ONSC 5886, at ¶ 179; Wurdell v. Paramount Safety Consulting Inc., 2024 ONSC 669, at ¶¶ 27-28), while the online edition of a newspaper is a newspaper (Weiss v. Sawyer; John v. Ballingall, at ¶¶ 22-32) and a radio broadcast streamed online is a broadcast (Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc. (2005), 256 D.L.R. (4th) 407 (Ont. C.A.); Nanda, at ¶¶ 62 and 81). Thiele, Tighe and Cook advise serving a notice within the six (6) weeks whenever the words were posted online, because it costs little and removes an argument.
Weekends and holidays. A last day that falls on a Sunday or on a holiday listed in s. 88 of the Legislation Act, 2006 moves to the next day that is not one (s. 89(1)); Saturday is not a holiday under that Act. A time limit for issuing a claim is also extended, under s. 89(2), when it ends on a day the court office is closed, Saturday included, to the next day the office is open (Kapularic v. Longphee (1990), 42 C.P.C. (2d) 313 (Ont. H.C.J.), at ¶¶ 12-17; Ashford v. Johnson, 2014 ONSC 5825 (Div. Ct.), at ¶¶ 18-20; Golberg v. North East Community Care Access Centre, 2018 ONSC 294, at ¶ 8), and a claim submitted through the online portals is issued on the date in the registrar's confirmation (rules 4.05.2(9) and 4.05.2.1(5)), so the portals do not make Saturday a filing day; the page applies that rule to the three (3) month and two (2) year periods. The notice is served on the publisher rather than filed in an office, and no decision has applied s. 89(2) to it, so the page leaves a Saturday notice day where it falls and says to serve on the Friday. The page computes the holidays of every year by rule. It cannot know a day fixed as a holiday by proclamation of the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor (s. 88(2), para. 12). No official list of such days exists; a proclamation would be published in The Ontario Gazette or the Canada Gazette, and none has been made in recent years (for September 19, 2022, the day of Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, the federal proclamation asked Canadians to set the day aside, and Ontario declared a day of mourning rather than a holiday). Nor can it know a day the courts close without a holiday. Since 2021 the Ontario courts have closed their counters on September 30, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, or on the following Monday when it falls on a weekend, under a yearly statement of the three Chief Justices, and a courthouse can close for weather or another emergency. Under s. 89(2) of the Legislation Act, 2006, a time limit that expires on a day the place for filing is not open during its regular hours runs to the next day it is open, but September 30 is not a holiday under s. 88 of that Act or rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the online portals stay open, so where a date on this page falls on it, act before it. The courts post their notices at ontariocourts.ca.
Minors and incapacity. The two (2) year period does not run while the person with the claim is a minor, or is incapable of commencing a proceeding, and is not represented by a litigation guardian (Limitations Act, 2002, ss. 6 and 7). Sections 5 and 6 of the Libel and Slander Act contain no such suspension.
The Act prescribes no form. The cases ask whether the notice fairly brings home to the publisher the matter complained of, so that it can review the matter and decide how to respond (Grossman v. CFTO-TV Ltd. (1982), 39 O.R. (2d) 498 (Ont. C.A.); J.K. v. Korea Times, 2016 ONCA 375, at ¶ 19). Tick each item as you check your draft; nothing is saved.
A letter or a formal document headed "Notice of Libel" will do, and so, as to form, will an e-mail with a clear subject line; service is a separate question (item 7). Many lawyers prefer the formal document, which tells the reader that the complainant is serious.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(1); Gutowski v. Clayton, 2014 ONCA 921, at ¶ 36; Thiele, Tighe and Cook, § 3.03[5] and Appendix A.
Give the full legal name of each person or corporation that may sue, including anyone who may later be added as a plaintiff. A notice that names the wrong complainant cannot be corrected once the six (6) weeks have run.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(1); Thiele, Tighe and Cook, Appendix A.
The newspaper or station, the title of the article or program, the date, the page or the URL, and for a broadcast the time; where the words appeared both in print and online, both versions.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(1); Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co., 2013 ONCA 405, at ¶¶ 57-59.
Set out the words, or at least the passages and the defamatory meaning you say they carry, so that the publisher knows what to investigate and what to retract. The exact words need not be reproduced and the particularity of a statement of claim is not required, but a bare assertion that an article is "largely untrue and libellous" is not enough. Quote the words where you can.
Grossman v. CFTO-TV Ltd. (1982), 39 O.R. (2d) 498 (Ont. C.A.), at 501-505; J.K. v. Korea Times, 2016 ONCA 375, at ¶ 19; Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Quebecor Media Inc., 2016 ONCA 206, at ¶¶ 5-6; Shtaif, at ¶ 58; Pohlman v. Herald Printing Co. of Hamilton (1918), 45 O.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.).
If the words appeared in print and online, or in a series of articles or broadcasts, specify each publication. A libel left out of the notice cannot later be sued on, and the notice must be broad enough to cover every claim while particular enough to let the publisher correct or retract.
Thiele, Tighe and Cook, § 3.03[1] and [4]; Misir v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. (1997), 105 O.A.C. 270 (Ont. C.A.).
The proprietor and the publisher, the reporter or author, the editor, the owner or operator of the station, and any non-media source whose words were reported or who issued the release; each of them must receive a notice, and an employer and its employee are separate defendants.
Watson v. Southam Inc. (2000), 189 D.L.R. (4th) 695 (Ont. C.A.); Weiss v. Sawyer (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 526 (Ont. C.A.); TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), 2012 ONCA 87, at ¶¶ 26-33; Chuvalo v. Worsoff, 2022 ONSC 4079, at ¶ 116.
The notice must be served in the same manner as a statement of claim, which means personal service or an alternative to personal service under rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, or delivered to a grown-up person at the defendant's chief office, which for an individual can be a campaign office. A lawyer may accept service, and acceptance does not waive objections to the notice. Keep an affidavit of service.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(1); Roach v. Now Communications Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 875 (Ont. C.A.), at ¶¶ 16-20; Siddiqui v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 607 (Ont. C.A.), at 611.
Use the calculator above. The notice must be given within the period; a late notice bars the action for the newspaper or broadcast libel, and a defective notice cannot be cured by issuing the claim within the period.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(1); Shtaif, at ¶¶ 55-56; Siddiqui, at 615; Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc. (2005), 256 D.L.R. (4th) 407 (Ont. C.A.).
The Act does not require the notice to propose a resolution, but the usual notice demands a full and fair retraction and apology, placed as conspicuously as the libel, and says that the complainant will otherwise sue. A retraction published within three (3) days after the publisher receives the notice is what confines the claim to actual damages under s. 5(2), where the libel was published in good faith, in mistake or misapprehension of the facts and without a criminal charge.
Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Quebecor Media Inc., at ¶ 11; Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(2); Williston & Rolls, Ontario Court Forms, 3rd ed., forms 3F11 and 3F12.
The statement of claim must be issued within three (3) months after the libel came to your knowledge, whatever the publisher does with the notice, and an action issued in time may include the same newspaper's or station's other libels of the previous year, provided notice of each was given in time.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 6; Frisina v. Southam Press Ltd. (1980), 30 O.R. (2d) 65 (Ont. H.C.J.), affd (1981), 33 O.R. (2d) 287 (Ont. C.A.); Shtaif, at ¶ 71.
The Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, as consolidated on e-Laws and current to October 21, 2026, with the computation rules of the Legislation Act, 2006 and the general period of the Limitations Act, 2002 that the calculator applies.
Notice of action, s. 5(1)No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff's knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant.
Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 5(1)
Limitation of action, s. 6An action for a libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the knowledge of the person defamed, but, where such an action is brought within that period, the action may include a claim for any other libel against the plaintiff by the defendant in the same newspaper or the same broadcasting station within a period of one year before the commencement of the action.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 6
Where plaintiff to recover only actual damages, s. 5(2) and (3)(2) The plaintiff shall recover only actual damages if it appears on the trial, (a) that the alleged libel was published in good faith; (b) that the alleged libel did not involve a criminal charge; (c) that the publication of the alleged libel took place in mistake or misapprehension of the facts; and (d) that a full and fair retraction of any matter therein alleged to be erroneous, (i) was published either in the next regular issue of the newspaper or in any regular issue thereof published within three days after the receipt of the notice mentioned in subsection (1) and was so published in as conspicuous a place and type as was the alleged libel, or (ii) was broadcast either within a reasonable time or within three days after the receipt of the notice mentioned in subsection (1) and was so broadcast as conspicuously as was the alleged libel.
(3) This section does not apply to the case of a libel against any candidate for public office unless the retraction of the charge is made in a conspicuous manner at least five days before the election.
Libel and Slander Act, s. 5(2) and (3)
Application and conditions, ss. 7 and 87. Subsection 5(1) and section 6 apply only to newspapers printed and published in Ontario and to broadcasts from a station in Ontario.
8(1) No defendant in an action for a libel in a newspaper is entitled to the benefit of sections 5 and 6 unless the names of the proprietor and publisher and the address of publication are stated either at the head of the editorials or on the front page of the newspaper.
8(3) Where a person, by registered letter containing the person's address and addressed to a broadcasting station, alleges that a libel against the person has been broadcast from the station and requests the name and address of the owner or operator of the station or the names and addresses of the owner and the operator of the station, sections 5 and 6 do not apply with respect to an action by such person against such owner or operator for the alleged libel unless the person whose name and address are so requested delivers the requested information to the first-mentioned person, or mails it by registered letter addressed to the person, within ten days from the date on which the first-mentioned registered letter is received at the broadcasting station.
Libel and Slander Act, ss. 7, 8(1) and 8(3)
Computation of time, Legislation Act, 2006, s. 89(1) Time limits that would otherwise expire on a holiday are extended to include the next day that is not a holiday.
(2) Time limits for registering or filing documents or for doing anything else that expire on a day when the place for doing so is not open during its regular hours of business are extended to include the next day the place is open during its regular hours of business.
(5) A period of time described as beginning before or after a specified day excludes that day.
(6) If a period of time is described as a number of months before or after a specified day, the following rules apply: 1. The number of months is counted from the specified day, excluding the month in which the specified day falls. 2. The period includes the day in the last month counted that has the same calendar number as the specified day or, if that month has no day with that number, its last day.
(7) The anniversary of an event that took place on February 29 falls on February 28, except in a leap year.
Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 89; the holidays are listed in s. 88
The general period, Limitations Act, 2002, ss. 4 and 5(2)4. Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.
5(2) A person with a claim shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1)(a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved.
Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, ss. 4 and 5; s. 6 of the Libel and Slander Act is preserved by s. 19 and the Schedule
Short answers to the questions that arrive with the first call. For anything specific to your situation, the answer has to come from a lawyer you have retained.
From knowledge. Subsection 5(1) counts the six (6) weeks from the day the libel "has come to the plaintiff's knowledge", and s. 6 counts the three (3) months the same way, so a person who learns of an article a year after it appeared still has the full periods from that day. The cases read knowledge to include what the person could have discovered by reasonable diligence (Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co., 2013 ONCA 405, at ¶ 42), and once the gist is known the person must act diligently to find out the rest. The day of knowledge itself is excluded from the count under s. 89(5) of the Legislation Act, 2006.
On the present state of the cases, no notice is required, because the courts have not held a social-media post, a blog, an e-mail or a WhatsApp message to be a "broadcast from a station in Ontario" or a "newspaper", and the defendant who says otherwise must prove it with evidence (St. Lewis v. Rancourt, 2015 ONCA 513, at ¶¶ 7-8; Levant v. Day, 2017 ONSC 5956, at ¶¶ 43-48; Nanda v. McEwan, 2019 ONSC 125 (Div. Ct.), at ¶¶ 80-84). The claim is governed instead by the two (2) year period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002. The point has not been decided by the Court of Appeal, and the authors of a practitioners' text (Thiele, Tighe and Cook) advise serving a notice within six (6) weeks anyway whenever the words were posted online, since the notice costs little and removes an argument. The same post on the website of an Ontario newspaper or station is a different matter; there the notice is required. Our article on removing defamatory posts from Google and social media covers what follows the notice.
Where the Act applies, no action for the libel in the newspaper or broadcast lies without a timely notice, and the Act gives the court no power to extend the period or to excuse the omission. Three (3) questions remain worth asking a lawyer; namely, whether the publisher is in fact within s. 7 (printed and published in Ontario, or broadcast from a station in Ontario) and has met the conditions in s. 8, which the publisher must prove; whether the day the libel came to your knowledge is later than you first assumed; and whether other publications of the same words, such as a repost by someone else or the source's own statements outside the newspaper, remain open under the two (2) year period. Each of those questions turns on facts, and each should be asked promptly.
The Legislation Act, 2006 answers it in two (2) rules. A time limit that ends on a Sunday or on one of the holidays listed in s. 88 runs to the next day that is not one (s. 89(1)); the Superior Court applied that rule to a two (2) year limitation period that ended on a Sunday in Golberg v. North East Community Care Access Centre, 2018 ONSC 294, at ¶ 8. Saturday is not a holiday under s. 88, but a time limit for filing a document that ends on a day the place for filing is closed runs to the next day it is open (s. 89(2)), and a statement of claim is issued in the court office, which is closed on Saturdays; the High Court applied the predecessor provision to a two (2) year period that ended on a Saturday in Kapularic v. Longphee (1990), 42 C.P.C. (2d) 313, and the Divisional Court applied s. 89 to a one (1) year period that ended on the Saturday of the Labour Day weekend in Ashford v. Johnson, 2014 ONSC 5825. The online portals do not change the answer, because a claim submitted through them is issued on the date in the registrar's confirmation (rules 4.05.2(9) and 4.05.2.1(5)). The page therefore moves the three (3) month and two (2) year dates past a Saturday, the Civic Holiday and the days the court office observes for a weekend holiday. The notice is different; it is served on the publisher rather than filed in an office, and no decision has applied s. 89(2) to it, so a Saturday last day for the notice stands on the page, and the safe course is to serve on the Friday.
Everyone you intend to sue for the newspaper or broadcast libel. That usually means the publisher or the owner of the station and the reporter or author, often the editor, and any non-media person who was quoted or who issued the release that the newspaper reported, because the Court of Appeal has held that the notice provision protects every defendant to such an action and not only the media (Watson v. Southam Inc. (2000), 189 D.L.R. (4th) 695 (Ont. C.A.); Weiss v. Sawyer (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 526 (Ont. C.A.)). An individual can be served by delivery to a grown-up person at his or her chief office, which in one case was a politician's campaign office (Roach v. Now Communications Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 875 (Ont. C.A.)).
Only with care. Subsection 5(1) requires the notice to be "served in the same manner as a statement of claim" or delivered to a grown-up person at the defendant's chief office. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an originating process is served personally or by one of the alternatives to personal service in rule 16.03, and e-mail to a person who has no lawyer is not among them without that person's consent or an order for substituted service under rule 16.04. Where the publisher's lawyer agrees in writing to accept service by e-mail, that acceptance is good service, although it does not waive any objection to the content of the notice (Siddiqui v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 607 (Ont. C.A.)). Where there is no such agreement, serve the notice personally or at the chief office and keep an affidavit of service; an e-mail copy sent the same day does no harm.
Under s. 5(2), a full and fair retraction, published in the next regular issue or in any regular issue within three (3) days after the notice is received (or, for a broadcast, within a reasonable time or within three (3) days), as conspicuously as the libel itself, confines the plaintiff to actual damages, but only where the libel was published in good faith, in mistake or misapprehension of the facts and without a criminal charge. The rule does not apply to a libel against a candidate for public office unless the retraction is made at least five (5) days before the election (s. 5(3)). Apart from s. 5(2), an apology published before the action or at the earliest opportunity afterwards may be pleaded in mitigation of damages under s. 9, and a prompt correction is often worth more to the person defamed than an award.
Two (2) of them. An action for libel in a newspaper printed and published in Ontario or in a broadcast from a station in Ontario must be commenced within three (3) months after the libel came to the knowledge of the person defamed (Libel and Slander Act, s. 6, which s. 19 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and its Schedule preserve). Every other defamation claim, including slander and libel on a website, in an e-mail or on social media, is governed by the basic two (2) year period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, running from the day the claim was discovered, with discovery presumed on the day of publication unless the contrary is proved (s. 5(2)), and subject to the ultimate period of fifteen (15) years in s. 15.
No, although one document can do both jobs. A demand letter asks for something, usually a retraction, an apology and the removal of the words, and warns of an action; a notice of libel is a statutory condition of the action under s. 5(1), with its own content and its own manner of service. A letter that identifies the publication and the words, names every intended defendant, says that it is given under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, and is served as the Act requires, is both. A letter that only complains, or that is sent but not served, is neither.
The statutes as consolidated on e-Laws, the decisions cited above, and the two practitioners' texts. Decisions with a neutral citation open on CanLII. The page is reviewed when the law changes; the last review date is shown in the results.
The dates above are general information, computed in your browser from what you entered, about Ontario law as it stood on the review date shown in the results. They are not advice about your matter. Grigoras Law does not give advice about a deadline to anyone who is not its client. A message, a telephone call or an intake form about a date on this page does not retain the firm, does not create a lawyer-client relationship, will not be answered on the deadline, and does not stop any period from running; only the step itself does that. If you want advice on your own dates, retain a lawyer, and do it well before the earliest date shown; the retainer comes first, the advice after.
