When most people think about starting a defamation lawsuit, they focus on the strength of their claim: was the statement false, was it damaging, can it be proved? What fewer people realize is that in Ontario, and across most of Canada, the ability to sue for defamation in a newspaper or broadcast depends on something that has to happen before the lawsuit is even filed. Miss the window, and the claim may be gone, regardless of how strong it would otherwise have been.
This is the notice requirement. It is a statutory condition precedent that applies specifically to defamation claims arising from newspaper publications and broadcasts. Understanding exactly what it requires, when the clock starts running, and where the traps lie is essential for anyone who has been defamed through those channels.
The Notice Requirement: What It Is and Why It Exists
In Ontario, a plaintiff who has been defamed in a newspaper printed and published in Ontario, or in a broadcast from a station in Ontario, must give the defendant written notice of the alleged libel before commencing an action. The requirement is set out in the Libel and Slander Act. Failure to comply is not a technicality that can be overlooked or cured by some later step in the litigation. It is fatal to the claim.
The purpose of the requirement is practical and constructive. The notice gives the publisher or broadcaster the opportunity to review the complaint and decide whether to publish a retraction, issue a correction, or offer an apology before litigation begins. This serves both parties: the publisher gets a chance to address the matter without the cost and reputational exposure of being named as a defendant, and the plaintiff gets a remedy that may be more effective, and certainly more timely, than a damages award months or years later. A prominent retraction published promptly can do more to repair a reputation than a judgment that arrives long after the sting of the defamation has already spread.
The short notice window built into the statute reflects this purpose. An opportunity to correct or retract is only meaningful if it comes while the publication is still fresh and the harm is still being felt.
Ontario’s Notice Requirements in Detail
Under the Libel and Slander Act, a plaintiff in Ontario must give written notice to the defendant within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge. The six-week period begins to run on the day after the plaintiff acquires knowledge of the defamatory material.
The notice must specify the matter complained of. It does not need to be in any particular form, and it does not need to reproduce the defamatory words verbatim. However, it must do enough to fairly bring home to the publisher the substance of what is being complained about, so the publisher can review the material and decide how to respond. A bare assertion that a plaintiff has been defamed, without identifying what the defamatory matter is, will not be sufficient. If the notice fails to adequately identify what is complained of, it may be treated as invalid and the right to sue may be lost.
Importantly, the notice need not set out every particular defamatory meaning the plaintiff intends to allege at trial, and it need not suggest a proposed resolution. The requirement is focused on identification and notice, not on negotiation.
Service of the Notice
The notice must be served in the same manner as a statement of claim, or delivered to an adult at the chief office of the defendant. Personal service, substituted service, and validated service as provided for under the Rules of Civil Procedure are all acceptable. A lawyer may accept service on behalf of the defendant.
One critical rule: serving a statement of claim within the notice period does not cure a defective notice. The notice requirement exists to give the defendant an opportunity to retract and apologize before litigation begins. Skipping the notice and going straight to filing a claim deprives the defendant of that opportunity. The notice and the claim serve distinct purposes and cannot substitute for one another.
When Does the Clock Start: Discoverability
The six-week period runs from when the alleged libel “has come to the knowledge” of the plaintiff. This language incorporates the principle of discoverability: the clock starts when the plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known, about the defamatory statement.
This matters in several practical situations. Where a plaintiff genuinely did not know about a publication at the time it appeared, the six-week period does not start running until the plaintiff discovers it or reasonably could have discovered it. However, the law does not permit willful ignorance. Once a plaintiff has discovered the gist of the alleged libel or reasonably could have known of it, they have a duty to act diligently to ascertain the relevant facts. The period will begin to run even if the plaintiff has not yet identified the precise publication.
A less obvious application of the discoverability principle arises where a series of articles is involved. Where an earlier article only becomes defamatory of the plaintiff when read together with a later one, the notice period runs from when the plaintiff could reasonably have discovered the later article. Where each article in a series is independently defamatory, the notice period runs separately for each from the date of its discovery.
Series of Publications: A Separate Notice for Each
Where a plaintiff has been defamed in a series of newspaper articles or broadcasts, a separate notice of libel is generally required for each publication. This can place significant time pressure on plaintiffs, particularly in the online environment where defamatory content can accumulate quickly across multiple posts or broadcasts.
There is an important benefit to timely notice in a series situation, however. Under the Libel and Slander Act, while an action must generally be commenced within three months after the libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, a plaintiff who has properly commenced an action may include claims for other libels by the same defendant in the same newspaper or broadcasting station that were published within one year before the commencement of the action, provided that a notice of libel was also served for each of those earlier publications. A deficient or absent notice for an earlier publication in a series cannot be cured by relying on a later properly noticed claim.
Non-Media Defendants
The notice requirement applies to all defendants, not only media organizations. If a non-media defendant provided defamatory quotes to a newspaper, issued a defamatory press release that was then published, or was otherwise implicated in a newspaper publication or broadcast, the notice requirement applies to them as well.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed this in Weiss v. Sawyer, holding that there is no principled basis for excluding any defendant from the benefit of the notice provision, an approach consistent with what Justice Abella had earlier stated in Watson v. Southam Inc. A non-media defendant is entitled to the same opportunity to retract and apologize that the statute provides to publishers and broadcasters.
Where a defamation action involves both an individual defendant and an entity vicariously liable for that individual’s conduct, notice must be served on both. In Ontario, the notice may be delivered to an adult at the chief office of the individual defendant as an alternative to the usual methods of service.
Notice and Online Publications: The Digital Complexity
The Libel and Slander Act was drafted for a world of physical newspapers and radio and television broadcasts. Courts have been required to work out how its provisions apply to the modern digital landscape, with varying results.
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in John v. Ballingall that the notice requirement applies to the online version of a publication that otherwise constitutes a “newspaper” under the statute. The word “paper” in the definition of “newspaper” is not restricted to the physical printed page. Where a newspaper publishes an article online as well as in print, the online version attracts the notice requirement.
Similarly, the Ontario Divisional Court held in Nanda v. McEwan that a radio broadcast distributed over the internet falls within the statutory definition of “broadcast” and is therefore subject to the notice requirement. The same has been held for the internet version of a television news broadcast.
The position is less settled for purely online content. In Bahlieda v. Santa, the Ontario Superior Court held that a “broadcast” under the Libel and Slander Act includes information posted on an internet website. However, the Court of Appeal declined to decide the issue on summary judgment and sent it to trial, and has since declined to adopt a single publication rule. Courts have also declined to find that social media posts, standalone blogs, and defamatory emails constitute “broadcasts” or “newspapers” for the purposes of the notice requirement, at least on the evidence typically available at early stages of proceedings. The defendant bears the burden of establishing that the publication falls within one of the protected categories.
Given this uncertainty, the practical approach is clear. A notice of libel should be delivered whenever the alleged defamatory statement appears online, regardless of its form. Whether the statement appears in an online newspaper article, a streaming broadcast, a podcast, a blog, or a social media platform, serving a notice within the statutory period eliminates a potential issue and provides the defendant with the prompt opportunity to respond that the legislation was designed to create. The cost of being cautious is low. The cost of missing the window is the claim itself.
If you become aware of a potentially defamatory statement in a newspaper, broadcast, or online publication associated with a media outlet, the six-week notice period in Ontario begins running immediately. Do not wait to assess the full strength of your claim before taking advice. The notice requirement is a condition precedent to suing, and once the window closes, it cannot be reopened.
What Happens if Notice Is Not Given or Is Defective
The consequences of failing to comply with the notice requirement are severe and not subject to judicial discretion in Ontario. If no notice is served, the action for libel in a newspaper or broadcast cannot be brought. If the notice is served but is defective, the action may be similarly barred.
Where the notice is inadequate, a defendant is not required to raise the deficiency immediately. A defendant who intends to rely on lack of or deficient notice as a defence must plead it. However, a defendant who delays unreasonably in bringing a motion to dismiss for lack of notice may find the motion dismissed, even though the adequacy of notice can still be contested at trial.
A notice that is defective in its content cannot be cured by serving a further notice after the deadline has passed. The six-week period is absolute in Ontario. Nor can the service of the statement of claim substitute for proper notice.
Notice Requirements Across Canada: A Brief Comparison
The notice requirement is not unique to Ontario, but its terms vary significantly by province.
In Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, the plaintiff must give notice within three months of the defamatory matter coming to their knowledge. For daily newspapers the required notice period is seven days; for other newspapers and broadcasts it is 14 days.
In the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon, the same rules apply, except that 14 days’ notice is required in all cases, and the notice must specify the “language” complained of rather than the “matter.”
Prince Edward Island follows a similar framework but requires five days’ notice for daily newspapers.
Quebec requires notice only for newspaper libel, not broadcast. The plaintiff must give three clear days’ notice (not counting holidays) to the proprietor of the newspaper, but is not required to do so within any specified period of learning of the defamation.
Saskatchewan requires notice only for newspaper libel. Five days is required for daily newspapers and 14 days for weekly newspapers. Saskatchewan’s limitations legislation also provides a saving provision allowing a court to excuse non-compliance where there is a reasonable excuse and no prejudice to the defendant.
British Columbia and New Brunswick are notable exceptions: neither province requires a pre-action notice for defamation claims.
The Shortened Limitation Period
Separate from the notice requirement, Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act imposes a shortened limitation period for defamation claims involving newspapers and broadcasts. A plaintiff must commence the action within three months after the libel has come to their knowledge. This is significantly shorter than Ontario’s general two-year limitation period.
The shortened period reflects the legislature’s view that newspaper and broadcast defamation disputes should be resolved promptly, and that long-delayed claims create particular difficulties for media defendants who may have difficulty preserving evidence of the context and circumstances of publication.
The notice and limitation periods are distinct. A plaintiff might give timely notice but then delay commencing the action beyond the three-month window. In that case, the right to sue is also lost. Both requirements must be met independently.
If you have been defamed in a newspaper or broadcast, time is critical. The six-week notice window in Ontario begins running the day after you discover the defamatory material. Our defamation practice advises on notice requirements, limitation periods, and all aspects of defamation claims in Ontario. Contact Grigoras Law promptly to discuss your situation.
Conclusion
The notice requirement in Ontario defamation law is not fine print in the pejorative sense. It is a substantive procedural condition that reflects a genuine policy choice: that disputes about published and broadcast defamation should be addressed early, that publishers should have the opportunity to correct errors before litigation begins, and that time-limited notice creates pressure for prompt action on both sides.
For plaintiffs, the notice requirement demands immediate attention the moment a potentially defamatory publication comes to their knowledge. Six weeks disappears quickly. For defendants, the notice requirement is a genuine protection that courts will enforce and that should be identified and raised at the earliest opportunity if it has not been complied with.
In an era where defamatory content migrates rapidly from traditional to online formats, the scope of the notice requirement continues to evolve. The safest approach, for anyone who suspects they have been defamed in a publication or broadcast of any kind, is to act immediately and take legal advice on whether and how the notice requirement applies.
