Defamation Lawyers in Toronto

Civil defamation in Ontario involves protecting an individual’s reputation from false and damaging statements. This legal area encompasses two primary forms: (1) libel, which refers to written or published defamatory statements, and (2) slander, which refers to spoken defamation.

In Ontario, the plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement was made to a third-party, was false, and caused harm to their reputation. The law balances protecting one’s reputation with the Canadian Charter-protected right to freedom of expression. The law on civil defamation outlines certain defences such as truth, fair comment, and qualified privilege. Laws regarding civil defamation helps to ensure that people are protected from unfounded or baseless attacks on their reputation and character.

What is Civil Defamation?

Civil defamation in Ontario involves protecting an individual’s reputation from harm caused by others’ false and damaging statements. This legal area is divided into two key types: libel, which pertains to written or otherwise permanent defamatory statements, and slander, which refers to defamation that is spoken out loud.

In Ontario, the Libel and Slander Act governs these categories. To substantiate a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement refers to them, was made by the defendant and communicated to the public, and that the statement in issue harmed their reputation from the perspective of a reasonable person.

The law sets out defences against defamation. Defences available to a defendant include proving the truth of the statement (justification), showing the statement was part of a fair and accurate report on current court proceedings or parliamentary functions (absolute privilege), or demonstrating the statement was a fair comment on a matter of public interest based on proven facts and not made with a malicious intent (fair comment).

Additionally, the responsible communication defence can be invoked if the publication was a matter of public interest and the defendant diligently tried to confirm the truth of the allegations. Specific timeframes must be adhered to when initiating defamation actions, especially for statements made in newspapers or broadcasts. The law continually evolves to accommodate our changing understanding of reputation and free speech and the increasing ways information can be disseminated, such as through social media, emails, or messaging applications.

Please note that this general explanation should not taken as a substitute for legal advice. Defamation law is a nuanced topic, and as such, you should seek advice from a knowledgeable lawyer if uncertain about potentially defamatory content.

How to Defend a Civil Defamation Claim?

Civil defamation defence lawyers in Ontario can use a number of defences to protect their clients from defamation claims. One common defence is truth (justification), where the defendant proves on a balance of probabilities that the defamatory statement is true. If the statement about the plaintiff is factual, the defamation claim fails, as truth is an absolute defence.

In the context of a civil defamation suit, a “balance of probabilities” burden of proof is used as is typically the case with civil suits. This means that the defendant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the defamatory statement at issue is factual. Simply put, the evidence presented must show that there is a greater than 50% chance that the statement is factual. This threshold is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings, which demands a much higher level of certainty.

In a defamation case, if the respondent can meet this standard and prove the truth of the statement, the defamation claim will fail because truth is a complete defence to defamation.

Another available defence is fair comment, which protects opinions on issues of public interest. For this defence to succeed, the defendant must show that the comment was based on facts, recognizable as an opinion, and not made with a malicious intent. The opinion must be one that any person could reasonably and genuinely hold, even if it may seem outlandish or prejudiced. Seeing as how complicated the laws on defamation can get and how nuanced certain situations can be, it is important to speak to an experienced lawyer to obtain the best legal advice for your particular situation.

In addition, privilege can be used as a defence. Privilege can be “absolute” or “qualified”. Absolute privilege applies to statements made in specific contexts, such as during parliamentary proceedings or in judicial settings, where freedom of expression is paramount. Qualified privilege covers statements made in situations where the communicator has a legal, moral, or social duty to make the statement, and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it, provided the statement is not made with malicious intent.

Finally, the responsible communication on matters of public interest defence protects journalists and others who publish information on matters of public interest. To use this defence, the defendant must demonstrate that they acted responsibly in verifying the information before publishing it, considering factors like the seriousness of the allegation and the urgency of the matter.

How to Prepare for a Civil Defamation Case?

Civil defamation defence lawyers in Ontario prepare for cases by gathering evidence to support defences like truth or fair comment. This involves collecting documents, witness statements, and expert testimony to substantiate the factual basis of the statements in question. Lawyers consider the context in which the statements were made to argue for defences like privilege or responsible communication. They may also negotiate settlements or seek to dismiss the case before trial through motions. 

What are the Possible Legal Outcomes of a Civil Defamation Lawsuit in Ontario?

The potential outcomes of a civil defamation lawsuit in Ontario can include dismissal of the case if a defence is successful, a ruling in favor of the plaintiff with damages awarded for harm to reputation, or a negotiated settlement between the parties. Damages can be compensatory, to cover actual losses; punitive, to punish malicious behaviour; or nominal, where harm is minimal but a legal wrong occurred. Courts may also issue injunctions to prevent further publication of defamatory statements.

How does Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP Legislation affect Civil Defamation Cases?

Ontario’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation significantly impacts civil defamation cases by providing a mechanism to quickly dismiss lawsuits intended to silence or intimidate critics. Enacted through the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015, this legislation introduced sections 137.1 to 137.5 to the Courts of Justice Act. The purpose of this legislation is to protect individuals from legal actions that are primarily designed to stifle free expression on matters of public interest.

Under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, a defendant can move to dismiss a defamation lawsuit at any stage after the proceeding is commenced, even before filing a statement of defence. To succeed, the respondent must first demonstrate that the lawsuit arises from an expression related to a matter of public interest, meeting what is known as the “threshold burden.” If this burden is met, the onus then shifts to the plaintiff to show why the lawsuit should proceed. In this context, the term “onus” means the responsibility or burden of proof.

The plaintiff must overcome two hurdles: the “merits-based hurdle” and the “public interest hurdle.” The merits-based hurdle requires that the plaintiff to establish grounds to believe that the proceeding has substantial merit, and that the respondent has no valid defence. This standard of proof is less onerous than the usual civil standard of balance of probabilities but requires more than just a simple suspicion.

The plaintiff must show that their claim is legally valid and supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief. The public interest hurdle involves demonstrating that the harm likely suffered by the plaintiff due to the respondent’s expression is sufficiently serious that it outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. This demands a qualitative assessment of the alleged harm balanced with the value of the respondent’s expression to the public interest.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the 2020 case of 1704604 Ontario Ltd. V. Pointes Protection Association, clarified the test for anti-SLAPP motions, maintaining that judges should focus on the specifics of each case to determine whether the lawsuit is being used strategically to silence the defendant or if it is a genuine attempt to protect one’s reputation. These decisions also highlighted the defence of qualified privilege, which protects statements made on privileged occasions unless made with malicious intent or recklessness.

To sum up, Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation equips defendants in civil defamation cases with a powerful tool to challenge and potentially dismiss meritless lawsuits aimed at suppressing free speech, thereby balancing the protection of reputations with the right to freedom of expression.