The Ontario Bar Association’s program Key Updates in Defamation Law, held on April 16, 2026, brought together leading practitioners for a discussion on the latest developments in defamation law. Jointly organized by the Entertainment, Media, and Communications Law Section and the Civil Litigation Section, the panel featured speakers Ryder Gilliland (DMG Advocates LLP), Andrea Gonsalves (Stockwoods LLP), and Arad Moslehi (Milosevic & Associates) who provided valuable insights and practical guidance.
As co-chairs and co-moderators of the program, Anisha Bhardwaj (Aird & Berlis LLP) and I had the privilege of guiding an engaging conversation that highlighted the complexities of modern defamation disputes.
Below are some of the key takeaways from the panel.
Defining Defamation
The panel began with a primer on what constitutes a defamatory statement and the legal elements required to establish a claim. Ryder Gilliland provided a clear overview of the legal framework: a defamatory statement must explicitly or implicitly identify an individual, must lower the individual’s reputation, and must be published to a third party.
Gilliland also addressed common misconceptions about defamation and clarified who can sue and be sued. For example, while it is often believed that corporations cannot bring a claim, Gilliland explained that corporations can indeed sue for defamation and are frequently plaintiffs in defamation actions.
Defences
Andrea Gonsalves summarized the defences available to defendants in defamation cases and the circumstances in which they apply.
For example, truth is an absolute defence. If the defendant can establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the defamatory statement is substantially true, the plaintiff will not succeed. Gonsalves emphasized that the focus is not on the technical accuracy of the words used, but on whether the substance or “sting” of the statement is true.
Another example is fair comment. It can be used by a defendant if the statement at issue relates to a matter of public interest, is based on fact, is recognizable as a comment, and contains a comment that a person could honestly believe. Gonsalves stressed that simply adding the words “in my opinion” to a statement is not enough to make the statement recognizable as a comment.
Gilliland further noted that, regardless of the defence raised, defendants should be ready to explain the meaning of the statement and present the most defensible interpretation.
Anti-SLAPP Legislation
Particular attention was given to anti-SLAPP legislation that was introduced in Ontario in 2015. Anti-SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which are lawsuits meant to intimidate or silence expression on matters of public importance. A defendant can bring a motion to dismiss a SLAPP at the early stages of the litigation process.
Gilliland broke down the process of bringing a motion to dismiss. First, the defendant must show that the proceeding is based on an expression they made that relates to a matter of public interest. If the defendant can meet this threshold, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff who must show two things:
-
There are grounds to believe that the proceeding has substantial merit, and the defendant has no valid defence.
-
The harm caused by the defendant’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.
If the plaintiff cannot show the above, the lawsuit is dismissed.
Arad Moslehi said that defendants who are bringing a motion to dismiss should invest most of their time preparing for the public interest threshold. The motion is often won or lost at this first step. For plaintiffs, Moslehi said it may be helpful to collect evidence of coordination or malice, such as statements made by the defendant expressing an intent to harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
Third-Party Liability & Online Defamation
The program’s most timely discussion centered on third-party liability and the evolving challenges of defamation in the digital age. The expansion of online platforms such as social media and livestreaming websites has significantly transformed how individuals share content and how defamation claims arise.
Even if an individual did not originally write a defamatory statement, republication by third parties can give rise to liability. Moslehi noted that any person who knowingly participates in the publication of a defamatory statement may be held jointly and severally liable as a publisher. For example, simply sharing a hyperlink to defamatory content will not, on its own, constitute publication, but if the person sharing the link adds commentary or endorses the content, it may attract liability.
Furthermore, Gonsalves noted that the rise of online communication platforms has led to an increase in defamation claims, often involving multiple defendants who can be difficult to identify and, in turn, to pursue in a formal action. Moslehi said that this is especially difficult if the publishers of the defamatory statement are using anonymous online profiles.
As technology advances and digital spaces for communication continue to expand, Gonsalves, Gilliland, and Moslehi all offer similar advice: be cautious and think twice before posting online. Although we may feel inclined to share our opinions with friends or on public forums, it is important to consider how our words are phrased and the potential impact they may have.
American vs. Canadian Defamation Law
Later in the program, the discussion shifted south of the border, where Gonsalves explored the approach to defamation law in the United States. Gonsalves said that the biggest difference between American and Canadian defamation law is the element of falsity. In Canada, the falsity of the defamatory statement is already presumed, whereas in America, the plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement is false. This puts a significant evidentiary burden on the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the United States has a public figure doctrine: if the plaintiff is a public figure or public official, they must prove actual malice as part of their case and that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Gonsalves said that this too adds an evidentiary burden on public figure plaintiffs.
The Future of Defamation Law
The program wrapped up on a forward-looking note, with the panel reflecting on how defamation law continues to evolve alongside changes in technology and the ways we communicate. Throughout the discussion, Gonsalves, Gilliland, and Moslehi shared thoughtful and practical insights that highlighted both the enduring principles of the law and the new challenges emerging in an increasingly digital space. As this area of law continues to develop, the conversation reinforced the importance of staying attuned to legal and technological developments alike.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.