Young woman reading her phone with a shocked expression, representing the discovery of defamatory content online in Ontario and BC

Defamation, Slander, Libel and Malicious Falsehood in Ontario and BC: What You Need to Know

Date: June 10, 2026

A false statement that damages your reputation can spread further and faster today than at any point in history. Social media, online reviews, and digital publications mean that defamatory content can reach thousands of people within hours and remain searchable indefinitely. Whether the statement targets an individual or a business, the harm is real and Ontario and BC law provides meaningful remedies to address it.

This article explains what defamation is, how slander, libel, and malicious falsehood differ, what you need to prove, what defences exist, how anti-SLAPP legislation affects defamation claims in both provinces, and what steps to take if you have been defamed or are accused of defaming someone else. For an overview of how Achkar Law handles these matters, see our defamation and injurious falsehood practice page.

What is defamation?
Defamation is a false statement of fact communicated to at least one third party that causes harm to the reputation of an individual or business. In both Ontario and BC, defamation is primarily governed by common law, supplemented by Ontario's Libel and Slander Act and BC's Defamation Act.

To succeed in a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements: the statement was defamatory in nature, meaning it would lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; it referred to the plaintiff; and it was published to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Once these elements are established, damage is presumed for libel. For slander, actual damage must generally be proven unless the statement falls into a recognized special category.

Slander vs libel: the distinction and why it matters

Libel

  • Defamation in a permanent or published form
  • Includes written statements, social media posts, online reviews, broadcast media, and photographs
  • Damage to reputation is presumed without proof of actual loss
  • Generally easier to prove because the statement is preserved
  • Notice requirements apply under Ontario's Libel and Slander Act and BC's Defamation Act for certain publications
  • Governs most modern defamation claims given the prevalence of online communication

Slander

  • Defamation in a transient spoken form
  • Includes verbal statements, conversations, and speeches
  • Generally requires proof of actual financial damage
  • Exceptions: no proof of damage required for allegations of criminal conduct, loathsome disease, professional unfitness, or sexual misconduct
  • Evidence typically relies on witness testimony and recordings
  • More difficult to prove given the transient nature of oral statements

What you must prove in a defamation claim

Defamation claims in Ontario and BC follow the same common law framework. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing three elements, after which the presumption of damage applies for libel and the defendant bears the burden of establishing any defence.

  • The statement was defamatory. The statement must be one that would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, expose them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or cause them to be shunned or avoided. The test is objective: what would a reasonable person think of the plaintiff on hearing or reading the statement?
  • The statement referred to the plaintiff. The statement must identify the plaintiff, whether by name, description, photograph, or other identifying information sufficient for those who know the plaintiff to recognize them.
  • The statement was published. The statement must have been communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Each republication of a defamatory statement is a separate publication that may give rise to a separate claim.
Online publications present a particular challenge because content spreads across multiple platforms and can be republished by third parties without the original author's involvement. Each platform on which a defamatory statement appears may constitute a separate publication, and the original author may have continuing obligations to remove content once they are aware of its defamatory character.

Malicious falsehood and injurious falsehood

Malicious falsehood, also known as injurious falsehood or trade libel, is a related but distinct cause of action that protects economic interests rather than personal reputation. Where a defamation claim protects how a person is regarded by others, a malicious falsehood claim addresses false statements made about a business, product, or service that cause actual financial loss.

The elements of a malicious falsehood claim in Ontario and BC are more demanding than for defamation. The plaintiff must prove that the statement was false, that it was made maliciously meaning with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and that it caused actual financial loss. The malice and damage requirements make malicious falsehood harder to establish than libel, but it is the appropriate claim where the false statement targets economic relationships rather than personal reputation.

Common examples include a competitor spreading false claims about the safety or quality of a product, false statements designed to cause customers or suppliers to terminate their relationship with a business, and misleading comparative advertising that contains materially false statements about a competitor's offerings.

Defences to defamation in Ontario and BC

A defendant in a defamation claim can raise several well-established defences. Establishing any one of them is a complete answer to the claim.

Truth / justification Truth is a complete defence to defamation in both Ontario and BC. If the statement is substantially true, the claim fails regardless of the harm caused. The defendant bears the burden of proving the truth of the statement, not merely its approximate accuracy.
Fair comment An honestly held opinion on a matter of public interest is protected as fair comment, provided the comment is recognizable as opinion rather than fact, is based on facts that are true, and is not motivated by malice. The defence protects robust criticism of public figures, businesses, and matters of general public concern.
Qualified privilege Statements made in contexts where there is a duty or interest to communicate and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving the information are protected by qualified privilege. Common examples include references given by employers, complaints made to regulatory bodies, and statements made in the course of legal proceedings. Qualified privilege is lost if the statement is made with malice.
Absolute privilege Statements made in court proceedings, parliamentary debates, and certain other official contexts are absolutely privileged regardless of their truth or the speaker's motivation. Absolute privilege cannot be defeated by evidence of malice.
Responsible communication The Supreme Court of Canada established a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61. The defence protects journalists and others who publish statements on matters of genuine public interest where they acted responsibly in verifying the information before publishing, even if the statement turns out to be false.
Anti-SLAPP dismissal In both Ontario and BC, defendants can bring an early dismissal motion where a defamation claim was brought primarily to silence expression on a matter of public interest rather than to address genuine harm. Ontario's section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and BC's Protection of Public Participation Act both allow defendants to seek dismissal with full indemnity costs on a successful motion.

Anti-SLAPP legislation in Ontario and BC

Both provinces have enacted legislation specifically designed to protect expression on matters of public interest from being silenced by strategic defamation litigation. The frameworks are similar in effect though different in their specific mechanics.

In Ontario, section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act allows a defendant to bring a motion for early dismissal where the claim arises from expression on a matter of public interest. Once the defendant establishes that the claim relates to such expression, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate substantial merit and that the public interest in the claim outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression. Failed anti-SLAPP motions result in full indemnity costs against the plaintiff. We covered this in detail in our analysis of Contrans Tank Group v. Chen, where an employer's defamation claim was dismissed on anti-SLAPP grounds.

In BC, the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c 3 provides equivalent protection. A defendant can apply to dismiss a claim that arises from an expression relating to a matter of public interest. As in Ontario, the court weighs the public interest in allowing the claim to proceed against the public interest in protecting expression. Successful dismissal applications attract full indemnity costs.

For plaintiffs considering defamation claims in either province, the anti-SLAPP risk must be assessed before proceedings are commenced. A claim that cannot survive an anti-SLAPP motion will cost more to bring than to abandon.

Dealing with a defamatory statement about you or your business, or facing a defamation claim?

Both pursuing and defending defamation claims carry specific risks in Ontario and BC. The limitation periods, notice requirements, and anti-SLAPP framework all need to be assessed before any steps are taken. Get advice on your position before the situation escalates.

Call: 1-800-771-7882 Understand Your Options

Procedural differences between Ontario and BC

While the substantive defamation law in Ontario and BC is substantially the same, there are procedural differences that matter depending on which province the claim is brought in.

In Ontario, the Libel and Slander Act, RSO 1990, c L.12 requires that notice be given to the defendant within six weeks of discovering the alleged libel where the claim relates to a newspaper or broadcast publication. Failure to give this notice within the required period can bar the claim. The notice requirement does not apply to online publications that do not fall within the statutory definition of newspaper or broadcast.

In BC, the Defamation Act, RSBC 1996, c 75 imposes a similar notice requirement for certain publications. Notice must be given to the defendant before proceedings are commenced, and the notice requirements vary depending on the nature of the publication. As in Ontario, the specific requirements turn on whether the publication falls within the statutory categories.

In both provinces, the basic limitation period for defamation claims is two years from discovery under the applicable limitation statutes. For online defamation, the discoverability rule means the clock starts when the plaintiff discovered or ought reasonably to have discovered the defamatory statement.

Reputation being damaged by false statements in Ontario or BC?

Defamation claims require prompt action: notice requirements are short, limitation periods run from discovery, and online content can continue causing harm while you wait. Get advice before the window closes.

Protect Your Reputation Now Or call us: 1-800-771-7882

Remedies available in Ontario and BC defamation claims

Damages

General damages compensate for harm to reputation, emotional distress, and mental suffering. Special damages address quantifiable financial losses such as lost contracts, clients, or business opportunities. Aggravated damages may be awarded where the defendant's conduct was particularly high-handed or where they continued the defamatory conduct after being notified of the harm. Punitive damages are available in cases of egregious conduct warranting denunciation beyond compensation.

Injunctions

A court order requiring the defendant to stop publishing defamatory content and, in appropriate cases, to remove it from online platforms. Injunctions can be obtained on an urgent basis where ongoing publication is causing continuing irreparable harm. The threshold for an interlocutory injunction in defamation cases is demanding given the competing interest in freedom of expression, but it can be met where the defamatory character of the statement is clear and the harm is serious.

Retractions and apologies

Courts can require public retractions or apologies to correct the harm caused by defamatory statements. In Ontario, the Libel and Slander Act provides that a prompt and sufficient apology or retraction can mitigate damages in certain cases. In BC, the Defamation Act contains similar provisions. Defendants who publish a genuine and prominent retraction promptly after learning of the defamatory nature of their statement are in a better position on damages than those who do not.

Takedown and removal

For online defamation, practical remedies often include demanding removal of the content from the platform or website where it appeared. This may be achieved through direct communication with the platform, through a court order, or through the terms of a negotiated settlement. Removing defamatory content from the internet is not always straightforward because content can be cached, republished, or preserved by third parties beyond the original publisher's control.

Steps to take if you have been defamed

  • Preserve evidence immediately. Take screenshots of online content including the URL, date, and time. Save emails, save copies of publications, and identify any witnesses who observed the statement being made. Evidence can disappear quickly online.
  • Do not respond publicly without legal advice. Responding to a defamatory statement without legal advice can create additional legal complications, provide the defendant with material to use against you, or escalate the situation unnecessarily.
  • Check the notice requirements. In Ontario and BC, certain types of defamation claims require pre-suit notice within a short window. Missing the notice deadline can bar the claim. Get legal advice immediately to confirm whether notice is required and within what timeframe.
  • Assess the limitation period. The two-year limitation period runs from discovery. Do not assume you have unlimited time to decide whether to proceed.
  • Consider the anti-SLAPP risk if you are the plaintiff. Before commencing defamation proceedings, assess whether the statement relates to a matter of public interest and whether the claim could face an anti-SLAPP motion. A claim that cannot survive an anti-SLAPP motion produces full indemnity costs against the plaintiff.

Practical takeaways

Defamation in Ontario and BC is primarily governed by common law, supplemented by Ontario's Libel and Slander Act and BC's Defamation Act. The substantive elements and defences are the same in both provinces.
Libel is presumed to cause damage without proof of actual loss. Slander generally requires proof of actual financial damage unless the statement falls into a recognized special category such as allegations of criminal conduct or professional unfitness.
Truth is a complete defence to defamation. The defendant bears the burden of proving the truth of the statement. A statement that is substantially but not entirely true may still provide a complete defence depending on the circumstances.
Both Ontario and BC have anti-SLAPP legislation. A defamation plaintiff whose claim is dismissed on anti-SLAPP grounds faces full indemnity costs. The anti-SLAPP risk must be assessed before proceedings are commenced.
Notice requirements apply under Ontario's Libel and Slander Act and BC's Defamation Act for certain publications. Missing these short notice windows can bar a claim. Get legal advice immediately after discovering a defamatory statement.
Online defamation is treated as libel and each republication on a new platform is a separate publication. Preserve evidence of online defamatory content immediately because it can be removed or altered quickly.

Frequently asked questions

What is defamation in Ontario and BC?

Defamation is a false statement of fact communicated to at least one third party that causes harm to the reputation of an individual or business. In both provinces it is primarily governed by common law, supplemented by Ontario's Libel and Slander Act and BC's Defamation Act. The plaintiff must establish the statement was defamatory, referred to them, and was published to at least one third party.

What is the difference between slander and libel?

Libel is defamation in a permanent form including written statements, online publications, and broadcast media. Damage is presumed without proof of actual loss. Slander is spoken defamation in transient form and generally requires proof of actual financial damage unless the statement falls into specific categories such as allegations of criminal conduct or professional unfitness.

What defences are available to a defamation claim?

The main defences are truth or justification, fair comment on a matter of public interest, qualified privilege, absolute privilege, responsible communication on matters of public interest established in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, and anti-SLAPP dismissal under Ontario's Courts of Justice Act or BC's Protection of Public Participation Act. Establishing any one defence is a complete answer to the claim.

What is malicious falsehood or injurious falsehood?

Malicious falsehood protects economic interests rather than personal reputation. The plaintiff must prove the statement was false, made maliciously, and caused actual financial loss. It is harder to establish than defamation because of the malice and damage requirements, but it is the appropriate claim where false statements target business relationships rather than personal reputation.

What is anti-SLAPP legislation and how does it affect defamation claims?

Anti-SLAPP legislation allows defendants to seek early dismissal of defamation claims brought to silence expression on matters of public interest rather than to address genuine harm. Ontario's provision is section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. BC's equivalent is the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c 3. Successful dismissal applications result in the claim being struck and full indemnity costs awarded against the plaintiff.

Is there a notice requirement before suing for defamation in Ontario or BC?

Yes, for certain publications. Ontario's Libel and Slander Act requires notice within six weeks of discovering the libel for newspaper and broadcast publications. BC's Defamation Act imposes similar requirements. Missing these notice periods can bar the claim. For online publications outside the statutory definitions, the common law limitation period applies without a pre-suit notice requirement. Get legal advice immediately after discovering a defamatory statement.

Dealing with a defamatory statement in Ontario or BC? Tell us what's happening.

Whether you are an individual or business whose reputation is being damaged by false statements, or you have been served with a defamation claim and need to assess your options and defences, Achkar Law advises on defamation and injurious falsehood claims across Ontario and British Columbia. We will assess your position and advise on the most effective approach before the notice period or limitation period narrows your options.

Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.