# Canada defamation online: the claim, the defenses, the clock

Canada defamation online explained: what a claim needs, why provinces differ, the main defenses, hyperlinks, early dismissal and the clock.

---


Canada defamation online is decided province by province. Outside Quebec, a claim rests on common-law rules that each province has adjusted with its own statute; inside Quebec, the same harm is analyzed under the Civil Code and its protection of reputation. In every province the first questions are the same: was the statement false and factual, did it point at you, who published it, and has a short clock already run.

That is why one sentence about "Canadian defamation law" is rarely safe. A post that is actionable in one province can be time-barred in another, and a post that looks defamatory to you may be protected opinion or responsible reporting on a public-interest topic. In a 2023 decision we read for this guide, the Supreme Court of Canada also showed that a defendant sued over such speech can ask a court to end the case early.

This guide covers the civil claim only. It is information, not legal advice; your own lawyer in the right province decides what applies to you. We read the Criminal Code sections on defamatory libel, the judgment in Hansman v. Neufeld, the Supreme Court of Canada's case page for Crookes v. Newton, the Civil Code of Quebec's articles on reputation and the Prince Edward Island Defamation Act. We could not read the full reasons in Crookes or Grant v. Torstar from the Court's own site, or the Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta statutes, and the text says where that matters.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>A claim generally needs a defamatory statement that refers to you and was communicated to at least one other person. Provinces add notice rules, short clocks and defenses on top of that.</li><li>The author of the statement is the clearest defendant. Whether a person who only links to, shares or hosts a statement counts as a publisher is a separate, contested question.</li><li>Truth, fair comment, responsible communication on a public-interest matter and privilege are the defenses that decide most online cases. Each one tells you what evidence to collect on day one.</li><li>Clocks can be very short. In the Prince Edward Island statute we read, an action against a newspaper or broadcaster must start within six months. Assume a short clock until your lawyer confirms the real one.</li><li>Suing is not always the best route. A platform report, a correction request or a lawyer's letter often settles what a lawsuit would only start.</li></ul></div>

<figure class="keyfacts">
<div class="keyfacts-grid">
<div><b>Six months</b><span>the limitation period in the Prince Edward Island Defamation Act for actions against a newspaper or broadcaster</span></div>
<div><b>Three months</b><span>the window in the same Act to give notice of intended action after learning of the publication</span></div>
<div><b>Five years</b><span>the maximum prison term on indictment for publishing a defamatory libel known to be false, under section 300 of the Criminal Code</span></div>
</div>
<p class="fig-src">Sources: Prince Edward Island Defamation Act, chapter D-5, unofficial consolidation current to May 16, 2025, sections 14 and 15; Criminal Code of Canada, section 300, on the Justice Laws website.</p>
</figure>

## Canada defamation online is provincial law, with Quebec on its own track

Defamation is mostly a matter of provincial private law, so there is no single Canadian civil statute that tells you the test and the deadline. Common-law provinces share a judge-made core and layer their own libel and slander statutes on top. Quebec works from civil law and a Civil Code that names reputation as a protected right.

Parliament does legislate in one corner. [Section 298 of the Criminal Code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-298.html) defines a defamatory libel as material published without lawful justification or excuse that could damage a person's reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person it concerns. It can be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony. Section 300 makes it an offence to publish a defamatory libel known to be false, punishable by up to five years on indictment. That track belongs to police and prosecutors, not to you, and the other legal layers around a Canadian reputation problem, such as privacy law and anti-SLAPP rules, have their own route map. Everything below is about the civil claim you would bring yourself.

You need to know which province's law governs before you can know the clock. Advice written for another province, or for the United Kingdom or the United States, can be wrong in ways that matter, so do not import a rule you saw elsewhere without a Canadian source.

## What a claim has to show before a court will look at harm

At common law a claimant generally has to establish three things: the words are defamatory, meaning they would lower you in the eyes of reasonable people; the words refer to you; and the words were communicated to at least one person other than you. We state this as the general common-law outline. The Supreme Court's own formulation in Grant v. Torstar could not be read for this guide, so confirm the exact wording with your lawyer.

**Defamatory.** The question is how an ordinary reader would understand the words, not what the author meant. "Left the site unfinished and took the deposit" is a factual accusation that can be proved true or false. "I would never hire them again" states a preference and mostly cannot.

**About you.** A name is enough but not required: if readers who know you would recognize you from the details, the statement can refer to you. Group statements are harder: a remark about "all agents in the city" rarely points at one of them.

**Published.** Online, publication happens when someone other than you reads it. Screenshots, view counts, shares and comments help show that others did.

Damage works differently from what many people expect. In the [Hansman judgment](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/19911/1/document.do) the Supreme Court describes that, in defamation law, general damages are presumed, which is why a claimant does not usually have to prove a particular loss to start a case. The same judgment adds a limit that matters later in this guide: the presumption can show that harm exists, but it cannot show that the harm is serious (paragraph 67).

## Online publication: who counts as the publisher

The author who typed the statement is the clearest defendant. Everyone else sits on a spectrum that Canadian courts have worked out slowly, and where our sources run out.

The key online case is Crookes v. Newton. The [Supreme Court's own case page](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33412) frames the question as whether a website author who deliberately inserts a hyperlink to a defamatory article can be presumed to have published that article, and, if not, when a court can infer that publication. The Court dismissed the appeal on October 19, 2011. We could read the case page but not the reasons. Law-firm commentary we read describes the majority as holding that a hyperlink alone does not publish the content it points to, unless the linker presents the linked material in a way that repeats it, and describes two other opinions that would go further in some cases. Treat that as a lead for your lawyer, not as a rule you can rely on from this page.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Limit</span>
<h4>The reasons in Crookes v. Newton were not read for this guide</h4>
<p>The Supreme Court's case page confirms the question and the outcome only. Before you send a demand to someone who merely linked to a statement, ask counsel what the full reasons say about links, embedded content and repeats.</p>
</aside>

Sort the people connected to a post by what they did, then choose the first move. The table states the usual practical position, not a legal conclusion.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Who</th><th>What they did</th><th>Usual first move</th><th>Main risk</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Author of the post</strong></td><td>Wrote and posted the statement</td><td>Correction or removal request, then a lawyer's letter</td><td>May be anonymous or abroad</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Person who reposts the words</strong></td><td>Repeated the statement to a new audience</td><td>Treat as a second publication; ask counsel</td><td>A fresh clock question and a larger audience</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Person who only links</strong></td><td>Pointed to a page without repeating it</td><td>Go to the page the link points to</td><td>A claim against the linker may fail</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Platform or host</strong></td><td>Stores or displays the post</td><td>Use its reporting form; a lawyer may use its legal channel</td><td>Not a defendant in every case; ask counsel</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Search engine</strong></td><td>Lists the page for your name</td><td>Its own removal request forms</td><td>It lists; it does not write or host the page</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

Canadian authority on court orders directed at search engines in defamation cases could not be confirmed for this guide, so treat that route as a question for counsel, not as a given.

## The defenses a defendant will raise, and what each means for your evidence

A defendant who cannot say the statement was never made will usually say it was protected. Read the defenses before you write a letter, because each one asks for evidence that you can start collecting now.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Defense</th><th>What the defendant must show</th><th>Where it tends to fail</th><th>What you collect</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Truth</strong></td><td>The substance of the statement is true</td><td>The defendant cannot prove the claim, or only part of it</td><td>Records that show the real facts</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Fair comment</strong></td><td>Opinion on a public-interest matter, based on facts, honestly held</td><td>The statement is really a factual claim, or the facts are false</td><td>The whole post and its context</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Responsible communication</strong></td><td>Public-interest publication after diligent, responsible checking</td><td>No effort to verify or to give you a chance to reply</td><td>Proof of what you told the publisher</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Privilege</strong></td><td>The statement was made on an occasion the law protects</td><td>Malice, or going beyond the occasion</td><td>Who received it and why</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

**Truth.** Truth is the plainest defense at common law. "Mostly true" is a risky ground for a claimant: if the core of the accusation is accurate, a claim over a harsh phrasing is weak.

**Fair comment.** In Hansman v. Neufeld the Supreme Court's reasons, by the headnote's account, list five elements of fair comment: the comment is on a matter of public interest, is based on fact, is recognizable as comment, meets an objective test of whether anyone could honestly hold the view, and was not actuated by express malice. Paragraph 8 gives a shorter version of the same test. This is why opinion is hard to attack. If the underlying facts are stated in the post or are widely known, a severe opinion about them can still be protected.

**Responsible communication.** In Grant v. Torstar Corporation, decided December 22, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and sent the case back for a new trial in which the newspaper could raise a defense of responsible communication. We could not read the reasons on the Court's site; a summary we read describes a two-part test: the publication concerned a matter of public interest, and the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegations, judged on all the circumstances. That summary says the defense is open to communications generally, not only to journalists, and lists as circumstances the seriousness and urgency of the allegation, the reliability of the sources and whether the plaintiff's side was sought and reported. If a defendant says the defense applies, a lawyer should test it against the actual factors in the judgment, not against a summary.

**Privilege.** Some occasions protect a statement even if it is untrue, provided the speaker had a duty or a legitimate interest and no malice. A complaint to a regulator or a reference to an employer are usual examples. A post to the whole internet is rarely one.

## Fact or opinion: the test run on real posts

Most online disputes turn on one classification, and you can run a first pass yourself with the full post and the replies around it. Ask whether the statement could be proved true or false with documents, whether the post states the facts behind its opinion, whether the topic is a matter of public interest, and whether the context signals a rant or a joke. A harsh opinion with its facts stated is hard to challenge. A harsh opinion with invented facts is not protected by the word "opinion".

If the answers point to opinion on disclosed facts, a lawsuit is likely to fail. If they point to a precise, checkable accusation with false facts, a claim is realistic, and the question moves to the clock, the evidence and the route. Never restate the post in a stronger form than it has.

## The clock and the notice rules differ, so assume the short one

Limitation periods are where defamation files are lost. Provinces set their own limitation rules, and some also have a separate defamation statute with notice requirements aimed at newspapers and broadcasters, as the Prince Edward Island example below shows. The official texts of the Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta statutes could not be read for this guide, so we state no clock for those provinces.

What we could read shows how far the rules can sit from the general ones. Section 14 of the [Prince Edward Island Defamation Act](https://qatauth.gpei.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/D-05-Defamation%20Act.pdf) says no action lies against a newspaper or broadcaster unless the plaintiff has, within three months of learning of the publication, given written notice; the Act then sets the length of notice for a daily newspaper differently from other newspapers and broadcasts. Section 15 requires an action against a newspaper proprietor or a broadcaster to start within six months of the plaintiff learning of the publication. The text we read is an unofficial consolidation current to May 16, 2025, and the Act itself says to check the King's Printer version for the authoritative text.

The Act defines a newspaper as a paper containing public news, intelligence or occurrences, or remarks on them, published at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days, and defines broadcasting as the dissemination of any form of radio-electric communication. Whether a news website, a blog, a podcast or a social media account falls inside definitions written that way is a question for a lawyer in that province. Do not assume that it does or that it does not.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Rule</span>
<h4>Date the day you learned of the post, and act as if the clock is short</h4>
<p>Write down the exact day you first saw the statement and how you found it. If a notice rule exists in your province, the clock may run from that day. A lawyer can add time; no one can add it back once it has passed.</p>
</aside>

The timeline below is the order we would follow for a new statement. It is generic and written for a case with a named author or outlet. The windows are a way of working, not legal deadlines.

<figure class="fig">
<figcaption><b>First thirty days after you find a defamatory statement</b></figcaption>
<ol class="fig-steps">
<li><b>Day 0: preserve and date</b>Capture the full page with the address, the date and the time, the author name and the replies. Note the day you first saw it. Do not reply in public.</li>
<li><b>Days 1 to 3: identify the province</b>Work out where you, the author and the outlet are, and who read it. Book a lawyer in the province whose law may apply.</li>
<li><b>Days 3 to 7: classify and choose the route</b>Fact or opinion, author known or unknown, outlet or private person. Decide between a correction request, a platform report and a lawyer's letter.</li>
<li><b>Days 7 to 14: send one clear request</b>Name the exact statements, say why they are false, attach the evidence and ask for a correction or removal by a stated date. A lawyer may add a notice if a statute requires one.</li>
<li><b>Days 14 to 30: decide whether to file</b>Compare the reply, the harm you can show, the cost and the early-dismissal risk. If the answer is to file, the filing date must still fall inside your clock.</li>
</ol>
</figure>

## Harm and early dismissal: why a weak claim can cost you

A defendant sued over speech on a public-interest topic can, under British Columbia's statute, ask a court to dismiss the claim early. In Hansman v. Neufeld (2023 SCC 14, file 39796, judgment May 19, 2023), the majority restored a chambers judge's order dismissing a defamation action under section 4 of British Columbia's Protection of Public Participation Act. The test, as the Court describes it, requires the claimant to show grounds to believe the claim has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defense, and then to show that the harm is serious enough that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression.

Two lessons carry beyond British Columbia. The Court held that presumed damages show that harm exists but not that it is serious (paragraph 67), and that a claimant must give evidence from which a judge can infer likely harm of sufficient magnitude, with a causal link to the defendant's words (paragraphs 67 to 71). It noted the dearth of evidence of harm in that case (paragraph 72). The practical translation is to start recording lost clients, canceled contracts, withdrawn offers and the messages that mention the post. A claim built only on distress and on the existence of the statement is exposed.

Other provinces may have their own versions of early dismissal, and we did not read them. A lawyer will tell you whether your province has one before you file.

## What a court can order, and what a letter can do instead

Plaintiffs usually seek damages, an order that the statement stop being published and, often, a retraction or apology. Choose the route by what it can change, not by what you want.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Route</th><th>What it can change</th><th>Speed</th><th>Cost level</th><th>Risk</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Correction request to the author</strong></td><td>The page, by edit or removal</td><td>Days</td><td>Low</td><td>Alerts the author; a public reply can spread the post</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Platform report</strong></td><td>The post, if it breaks the platform's rules</td><td>Days to weeks</td><td>Low</td><td>Defamation is often not a stated ground</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Lawyer's letter</strong></td><td>Removal, correction or an apology by agreement</td><td>Weeks</td><td>Medium</td><td>May be published or answered with an early-dismissal motion</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Court action</strong></td><td>Damages, an order against the defendant, sometimes an order that reaches intermediaries</td><td>Months to years</td><td>High</td><td>Costs, public record and a second round of attention</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

A court order against the author or the host changes the page; a search engine request changes only what it lists for a query. Copies can survive on archives or in screenshots. Never use fake accounts, pressure on a journalist or threats to shift a post: those tactics break platform rules, can create new liability and often produce a second article.

## Quebec: reputation is a protected right, not a common-law tort

Quebec's private law is civil law, not common law. The [Civil Code of Quebec](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/ccq-1991) states in article 3 that every person holds personality rights, including the right to respect of name, reputation and privacy, and that these rights are inalienable. Article 35 states that every person has a right to respect of reputation and privacy, and that privacy may not be invaded without consent or without authorization by law. We read articles 3 and 35 only. The page text stopped before the Code's liability and prescription rules, so we state no Quebec test and no Quebec clock, and the common-law defenses above should not be transposed. If your matter touches Quebec, through the statements, the author or the audience, ask a Quebec-qualified lawyer first, and ask for the clock in your first meeting.

## A worked scenario: an invented small business and an anonymous post

This scenario is invented and uses generic parties. Assume a small renovation company in a common-law province. A person posts, under a new account, "They took a deposit for a job they never started and then stopped answering." The company did start the job and finished it, and has the invoices and photos to show it. The post sits near the top of the results for the company name.

On day 0 the owner captures the page, the account name and the replies, and records the day she first saw it. On day 2 she applies the fact-or-opinion questions: the statement is a precise accusation, checkable with documents. On day 4 she reports the post to the platform and writes one reply offering to review the file privately. On day 9, with no answer, she asks a lawyer in her province for a letter naming the false statements and attaching the invoices. On day 12 the account is deleted, and she files a search engine removal request for the leftover listing, with the evidence.

The days are assumptions, not outcomes to expect. The point is the order: preserve, date, classify, ask, then escalate only if each step fails, with no angry reply, no fabricated counter-reviews and no filing before the clock is known.

## Your next step: preserve, date and see a lawyer in the right province

If a statement about you is false and checkable, spend the first hour on evidence, not drafting: save the page, write the date you found it, gather the documents that prove the facts, then speak to a lawyer in the province whose law may apply before any public reply or demand goes out.

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>Do not argue in public and do not ask the author to delete it before you have saved everything. If the statement is on a page or a search result that you want addressed, our <a href="/remove-negative-content">removal service</a> works from the evidence and the right route for your case, alongside your own counsel.</p></div>

Reputation Partners works on the takedown and de-indexing side of these files; the decision to sue, and the clock that goes with it, belong to your lawyer. Bring five questions: which province's law applies, which defenses the other side will raise, what the notice and limitation rules are, whether early dismissal exists, and what harm you can document.

## Questions people ask

### Is it defamation if the statement is true?

Not in the common-law provinces, where truth is a defense. A claim over an accurate statement is weak, even if it is harsh or embarrassing. The harder cases are statements that are partly true, or true in substance but unfair in wording. Gather documents that show the real facts before you decide whether a claim is worth pursuing.

### Can I sue someone who posted anonymously?

You can start by identifying what you know: the platform, the date, the wording and any link to a real person. Finding who is behind an account usually needs a court order directed at the platform or another holder of the data, and a lawyer must advise on how that works in your province. Do not try to find the person by hacking or intimidation.

### Does sharing a link count as publishing the statement?

The Supreme Court heard that question in Crookes v. Newton and dismissed the appeal on October 19, 2011. We read the case page but not the reasons, and commentary we saw suggests a link alone is not publication in the usual case. Because repeating the words, embedding content or adding comments can change the answer, ask a lawyer before you send a demand.

### How long do I have to act?

It depends on the province and on who published the statement. The Prince Edward Island Act we read sets a three-month notice window and a six-month limitation period for newspapers and broadcasters, but we could not read the Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta statutes. Treat the deadline as short, date the day you learned of the post and get provincial advice early.

### Is a bad review defamation?

Sometimes, but not usually. A review that states an opinion about your service, with the reasons given, is often protected. A review that makes a precise false accusation, such as a claim of a crime or of a fact that can be disproved, is more likely to qualify. Context and the platform's own review rules shape the practical route.