In Hamilton v. Vaughan, 2025 ONCA 98, the appellant made comments about the respondent on an online platform. The appellant shared details about her own legal issues; named the respondent, her former lawyer; and shared an unflattering opinion about the respondent. The respondent commenced an action against the appellant seeking damages for libel, slander, intentional interference with economic relations, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of mental distress.
The appellant brought a motion seeking, among other relief, an order that the respondent’s action was time-barred. The appellant’s basis for this allegation was that a libel notice was not served within the time prescribed by s. 5 of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12. This statute requires notice of a defamation claim to be given to the publisher within six weeks of the discovery if the comments were made “in a newspaper or in a broadcast.” S. 6 further requires an action regarding comments in a newspaper or a broadcast to be commenced within three months of the publication’s discovery.
The motion judge found this statutory limitation period did not apply to the respondent’s claim. Relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Levant v. Day, 2019 ONCA 244, the motion judge held that the comments were not a broadcast because the appellant had failed to present any evidence regarding the platform where she made the comments, nor did the appellant advance any policy reasons for justifying an extension of the word “broadcast”.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decison. In doing so, the Court provided a reminder for parties who wish to invoke s. 5 of the Libel and Slander Act in defending a defamation action:
“The appellant further submits that the motion judge erred in finding that the action was not statute barred or otherwise prohibited pursuant to ss. 5(1) and 6 of the LSA. There is no merit in this submission. The motion judge correctly found that the comments were not a broadcast. The appellant had the onus to establish that the platform utilized constituted a broadcast and she failed to lead evidence to support that position.” [emphasis added]
In short – an online publication does not automatically trigger section 5(1) and 6 of the Libel and Slander Act. The party making that assertion must lead evidence to establish that a publication constitutes a “broadcast” under this statute.
The lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP have experience with business defamation and civil litigation. Please contact us for an initial consultation.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
