Defamation — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Defamation
Defamation in the workplace occurs when an employer, employee, or former employee makes a false statement that harms another person's reputation. It's a serious issue that can arise during performance reviews, reference checks, or in the aftermath of a termination. In Ontario, defamation is divided into two categories: libel (written or published statements, including emails) and slander (spoken statements). For a statement to be considered defamatory, an employee must generally prove three things: the statement was communicated to a third party, it clearly referred to the employee, and it would lower the employee's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.
However, the workplace has unique protections. Employers can often rely on the defence of 'qualified privilege.' This legal principle protects statements made in good faith on a matter of common interest, without malice. For example, a manager providing an honest but negative performance review to HR, or a former employer giving a reference, is typically covered by qualified privilege. To defeat this defence, an employee must prove the employer acted with 'malice'—meaning they knew the statement was false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth, intending to cause harm. This is a high bar to meet.
Defamation claims are often pursued alongside other legal actions, such as wrongful dismissal, especially when an employer alleges 'just cause' for termination based on false accusations of misconduct. For unionized employees, the ability to sue for defamation in court may be limited. Under the principles established in cases like Weber v. Ontario Hydro, if the dispute arises from the collective agreement, it must be handled through the grievance and arbitration process. The specific context of how and why a statement was made is critical in any defamation case, making a detailed analysis of the facts essential before pursuing a claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between my boss giving me a bad review and defamation?
A negative performance review is not automatically defamation. If the comments are based on your manager's honest opinion of your work, even if you disagree, it's likely protected. Defamation occurs when the review contains false statements of fact (not opinion) made with malice, which damage your reputation.
Is there a time limit to sue for defamation in Ontario?
Yes. For libel in a newspaper or broadcast, you must give written notice within six weeks of the libel coming to your knowledge. For most other defamation claims, the general limitation period is two years from the date the claim was discovered, under the Limitations Act, 2002.
My old boss gave me a bad reference and I lost the job. Can I sue them?
You may have a claim if you can prove the reference contained false information and was given maliciously. Former employers are protected by qualified privilege when giving references, so you would need to show they were not just offering an honest, albeit negative, opinion, but were intentionally lying to harm you.
What does 'publication' mean in a defamation case at work?
Publication simply means the defamatory statement was communicated to at least one other person. This could be an email sent to HR, a comment made in a team meeting, a conversation with a prospective employer, or even a post on a company intranet.
Can I be sued for defamation for leaving a negative online review about my former employer?
Yes, employers can sue former employees for defamation. While you are entitled to share your honest opinions, if your review contains false statements of fact that harm the company's reputation, they may have grounds for a libel claim against you.
When should I contact a lawyer about potential defamation by my employer?
You should consider contacting a lawyer when you have clear evidence of a false statement made by your employer that has caused you tangible harm, such as the loss of a job offer or significant damage to your professional standing in your industry.
Common Scenarios
- An employer terminates an employee for 'cause' based on a false allegation of theft and communicates this reason to a recruitment agency, preventing the employee from getting new work.
- During a restructuring, a manager tells the remaining team members that a laid-off colleague was 'not performing' and 'difficult to work with,' when the lay-off was purely economic.
- A company issues a press release about a departing executive that includes false and misleading statements about their conduct to justify the termination.
- An employee is denied a promotion after their supervisor includes fabricated incidents of 'insubordination' in their official performance file submitted to senior management.
What You Should Know
- Carefully document the exact wording of the defamatory statement, who made it, when it was made, and who else heard or saw it.
- If the defamation was in writing (libel), be mindful of the very short notice periods required under Ontario's Libel and Slander Act before you can start a lawsuit.
- Gather evidence of the damages you have suffered, such as emails rescinding a job offer, letters from recruiters, or records of lost business opportunities.
- Remember that truth is an absolute defence to defamation; a statement that is negative but factually correct cannot be the basis of a successful claim.
- Defeating a defence of qualified privilege requires proving malice, which is a complex legal task. Seek advice from an employment lawyer to evaluate the evidence and strength of your case.
Featured Cases
1486151 Ontario Limited (Diverse Transportation) v. C.
2025 ONCA 786 (CanLII) · 2025-11-17Anti-SLAPP: Employment Dispute vs Public Interest
This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision on an anti-SLAPP motion brought by a former employee against a former employer. The central issue is whether the former employee's communications, which included allegations of unpaid wages and threats to contact clients, constituted a matter of public interest or merely an employment dispute. The Court of Appeal reviewed the application of the anti-SLAPP framework under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, specifically the balancing test between public interest in expression and the harm to reputation.
A. v. K.
2025 ONSC 5689 (CanLII) · 2025-10-28Vicarious Liability for Employee Defamation
This is a procedural motion to strike claims in a tort action involving vicarious liability for employees' defamatory social media posts. The court addressed whether the brokerages owed a duty of care, were vicariously liable for the agents' conduct, and whether punitive damages could be awarded vicariously. The claim for punitive damages against the brokerages was struck as having no reasonable prospect of success.
B. v. V.
2025 ONSC 5800 (CanLII) · 2025-10-14Jurisdiction: Federal Labour Act vs Small Claims Court
This is an appeal to the Divisional Court regarding a motion to strike a defamation claim arising from workplace matters. The court addressed whether the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court in favor of the grievance process, and also considered motions for fresh evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
A. v. B.
2025 ONSC 4858 (CanLII) · 2025-08-25Workplace Harassment Jurisdiction: Weber Framework Application
This is a jurisdictional motion determining whether claims of workplace harassment, defamation, and intentional interference with economic relations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a Grievance Settlement Board or the courts. Applying the Weber v. Ontario Hydro framework, the court analyzed the essential character of the dispute based on the pleadings to determine if it arose from the collective agreement. Costs were awarded to the successful party on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
H. v. St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology
2025 ONSC 1441 (CanLII) · 2025-03-04Personal Liability of Corporate Officers in Wrongful Dismissal
This is an interlocutory motion to strike decision in a wrongful dismissal case involving a senior employee terminated from St. Clair College. The plaintiff alleged that individual corporate officers committed torts including defamation, injurious falsehood, and inducing breach of contract in connection with the termination. The court addressed whether these claims against the individual defendants were sufficiently pleaded and whether they should be struck for lack of specificity or being frivolous.
W. v. D. et al.
2025 ONSC 956 (CanLII) · 2025-02-12W. v. D.: Amending Pleadings in Employment Defamation
This is a procedural ruling regarding a plaintiff's motion to amend a Statement of Claim in an action against an employer for defamation and improper disciplinary actions. The court addressed whether to allow amendments to add parties and provide particulars for the defamation claim, and whether the claim was barred by limitation periods or the grievance process.
W. v. VAC Developments Limited
2024 ONCA 713 (CanLII) · 2024-09-26W. v. VAC Developments: Defamation Claim Dismissed
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the employer's counterclaim for defamation. The employee, laid off after reporting racist threats at work, spoke to the media about the employer's failure to address the threats. The employer sued for defamation, and the employee brought an anti-SLAPP motion which was granted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal because the employer failed to show sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the employee's expression.
W. v. Vac Developments Limited
2023 ONSC 4679 (CanLII) · 2023-09-21Anti-SLAPP Dismissal: Workplace Racism & Defamation Counterclaim
This is an interlocutory ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion brought by a former employee against an employer's counterclaim for defamation and economic interference. The employee, who alleged anti-Black racism and was laid off after demanding police involvement, faced a counterclaim that the employee argued was a retaliatory measure to silence them. The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding it failed the merits and public interest hurdles because the employer lacked evidence of reputational harm and the employee's expression regarding workplace racism was protected as essential to public discourse.
2110120 Ontario Inc. v. B.
2023 ONCA 539 (CanLII) · 2023-08-16Anti-SLAPP: Truck Drivers Wage Dispute
This is an appeal from a procedural ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion brought by an employer against former truck drivers who alleged unpaid wages and misclassification as independent contractors. The drivers had made public statements and engaged in protests regarding these labour practices, leading to defamation claims by the employer. The Court of Appeal addressed whether these expressions were protected as matters of public interest under the Anti-SLAPP legislation and determined the costs associated with the motion.
H. v. R.
2023 ONSC 4396 (CanLII) · 2023-07-28H. v. R.: Motion to Strike Employment & Tort Claims
This was a civil procedure motion to strike pleadings in a case involving allegations of defamation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and employment-related damages. The court struck the plaintiff's Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim as scandalous and untenable, dismissing the defamation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and employment contract claims due to lack of particulars, evidence, and merit. Costs were awarded to the defendants.
S.-N. v. Rubin Thomlinson LLP
2023 ONCA 86 (CanLII) · 2023-02-08Appeal Dismissed in Defamation Claim Over Harassment Report
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order granting the respondents' motion to dismiss the appellant's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act). The appellant, a medical resident, had sued the respondent workplace investigator over executive summaries that concluded her sexual harassment complaints were unproven and found her not credible. The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the summaries related to a matter of public interest, were protected by qualified privilege, lacked evidence of malice, and that the balancing test favoured protecting the expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the reports on the investigation into a public educational institution regarding harassment and patient safety concerns engaged the public interest and were protected by qualified privilege.
B. v. Schiffer, CPA Professional Corporation
2023 ONSC 724 (CanLII) · 2023-01-30Wrongful Dismissal Appeal: Resignation and Termination for Cause
This is an appeal from a Deputy Judge's decision in a wrongful dismissal action brought by an employee against a CPA professional corporation. The employee alleged wrongful dismissal and defamation after resigning and being terminated for cause following the discovery of an unauthorized invoice. The appeal focused on whether the Deputy Judge erred in dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim and in defining the term 'fraudulent' in the context of the defamation claim.
O. v. N.
2022 ONSC 4302 (CanLII) · 2022-07-22OLRB Jurisdiction: Union Campaign Defamation
This is a procedural ruling on jurisdiction determining whether the Ontario Labour Relations Board has exclusive authority over defamation claims arising from union organizing campaigns. The court applied the Weber framework and a modified-Weber analysis to decide if the absence of a collective agreement precludes the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995.
2110120 Ontario Inc. o/a Cargo County v. B.
2022 ONSC 1766 (CanLII) · 2022-03-21Anti-SLAPP: Former Employees' Protests vs Employer
This is an interlocutory motion to dismiss defamation, trespass, and harassment claims brought by an employer against former employees who engaged in public protests and social media campaigns alleging 'wage theft.' The court applied the anti-SLAPP framework under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine whether the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest. The motion was dismissed because the court found the defendants' actions, which included protests at the employer's residence and business premises, were intended to circumvent the ongoing legal process and that the harm to the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in the expression.
T. v. Canadian Association of Professional Employees
2021 ONSC 6638 (CanLII) · 2021-10-14Constructive Dismissal: Motion to Strike Union Officer Claim
This is an interlocutory proceeding regarding a motion to strike the Statement of Claim in a dispute involving constructive dismissal and defamation. The plaintiff, a former union president, alleged mistreatment, breach of contract, and defamation by union officers. The court declined to strike the claim in whole but struck certain paragraphs for including evidence or irrelevant details, granting leave to amend to focus on material facts.
N. v. M.
2020 ONCA 431 (CanLII) · 2020-07-02Union Election Defamation: Anti-SLAPP Appeal
This is an appeal from a civil procedure ruling regarding an anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action arising from a union election campaign. The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed whether statements alleging racism, corruption, and misconduct against a union candidate were related to a matter of public interest under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and whether the motion judge correctly applied the public interest balancing test.
W. v. OSSTF
2019 ONSC 5830 (CanLII) · 2019-10-08Union Defamation: Qualified Privilege & Summary Judgment
This is a summary judgment motion in a defamation action brought by a former union president against the union. The court addressed whether the union's publication of statements regarding the plaintiff's conduct and collective agreement negotiations was protected by qualified privilege and whether the plaintiff proved malice to defeat that privilege.
N. v. M.
2019 ONSC 3357 (CanLII) · 2019-06-04Union Election Defamation: Anti-SLAPP Motion
This is a procedural ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action stemming from statements made during a local union election campaign. The court determined that expressions made during a local union election are private matters and do not engage the public interest required to trigger protection under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. Consequently, the defendants failed to establish that the defamatory statements were protected.
N. v. M.
2019 ONSC 125 (CanLII) · 2019-01-07Union Arbitration & Defamation: Judicial Review
This is a judicial review of a Deputy Judge's decision concerning a union member's dispute with their union. The court addressed whether the union constitution required mandatory arbitration before legal action, the application of the Libel and Slander Act to social media and poster statements, and the handling of an Anti-SLAPP motion. The court found errors in the Deputy Judge's failure to address specific claims and the Anti-SLAPP motion, permitting certain defamation claims to proceed.
B. v. CTV
2018 ONSC 7497 (CanLII) · 2018-12-13Defamation vs Labour Jurisdiction: Weber Framework
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning jurisdiction where a unionized employee sued their employer for defamation over news stories alleging sexual harassment. The employer argued the claim arose under the collective agreement and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour tribunal. The court applied the Weber framework, determining that the salacious nature of the public reporting exceeded the employment context, thereby granting the Superior Court jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim.