The following definitions apply in this Act. R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.1
“broadcasting” means the dissemination of any form of radioelectric communication, including radiotelegraph, radiotelephone and the wireless transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by means of Hertzian waves. (radiodiffusion et télédiffusion)
“defamation” means libel or slander.(diffamation)
“newspaper” means a paper containing news, intelligence, occurrences, pictures or illustrations, or remarks or observations on it, printed for sale and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at intervals not exceeding 31 days between the publication of any two of the papers, parts or numbers.(journal)
“public meeting” means a meeting genuinely and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public concern, whether admission to it is general or restricted.(assemblée publique)
An action lies for defamation, and if defamation is proved in an action for defamation, damage shall be presumed. R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.2
In an action for defamation, the plaintiff may allege that the matter complained of was used in a defamatory sense, specifying the defamatory sense without alleging how the matter was used in that sense, and the pleading shall be put in issue by the denial of the alleged defamation, and if the matter set out, with or without the alleged meaning, shows a cause of action, the pleading shall be sufficient. R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.3
In an action for defamation in which the defendant pleaded a denial of the alleged defamation only, or has suffered judgment by default, or judgment has been given against the defendant on motion for judgment on the pleadings, the defendant may give in evidence, in mitigation of damages, that the defendant made or offered a written apology to the plaintiff for the defamation before the commencement of the action, or, if the action was commenced before there was an opportunity of making or offering the apology, that the defendant did so as soon afterwards as the defendant had an opportunity. R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.4
With the defendant’s defence, the defendant may pay into court a sum of money by way of amends for the injury sustained by the publication of the defamatory matter, with or without a denial of liability, and the payment shall have the same effect as payment into court in other cases. R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.5
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.6
On the trial of an action for defamation, the jury may give a general verdict on the whole matter in issue in the action and shall not be required or directed to find for the plaintiff merely on proof of publication by the defendant of the alleged defamation and of the sense ascribed to it in the action.
According to its discretion, the court shall give its opinion and directions to the jury on the matter in issue as in other cases.
If they think fit to do so, the jury may find a special verdict on the matter in issue in the action.
The proceedings after verdict, whether general or special, shall be the same as in other cases.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.7
On an application by two or more defendants in two or more actions brought by the same person for the same or substantially the same defamation, the court may make an order for the consolidation of the actions so that they shall be tried together.
After an order has been made under subsection (1) and before the trial of the actions, the defendants in any new actions, instituted in respect of any such defamation, shall be also entitled to be joined in a common action on a joint application by the new defendants and the defendants in the actions already consolidated.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.8
In a consolidated action under section 7, the court or jury shall assess the whole amount of the damages, if any, in one sum, but a separate verdict shall be given for or against each defendant in the same way as if the actions consolidated had been tried separately.
If the court or jury gives a verdict against defendants in more than one of the consolidated actions, it shall apportion the amount of the damages between and against those defendants.
If the plaintiff is awarded the costs of the action, the judge shall make the order that the judge considers just for the apportionment of the costs between and against the defendants.
1980, c.16, s.1
If the defendant published alleged defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant did not hold the opinion if
(a) the defendant did not know that the person expressing the opinion did not hold the opinion,
(b) a person could honestly hold the opinion, and
(c) the person expressing the opinion was identified in the publication.
For the purpose of this section, the defendant is not under a duty to inquire into whether the person expressing the opinion does or does not hold the opinion.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.9
A fair and accurate report of any of the following that is published in a newspaper or by broadcasting shall be privileged, unless it is proved that the publication was made maliciously:
(a) a public meeting; or
(b) any of the following proceedings or meetings, except if neither the public nor any reporter was admitted:
(i) proceedings in the Senate or House of Commons of Canada, in the Legislative Assembly of this Province or any other province of Canada or in a committee of any of those bodies;
(ii) a meeting of commissioners authorized to act by or under an Act or other lawful warrant or authority;
(iii) a meeting of a municipal council, school board, board of education, board of health or of any other board or local authority formed or constituted under the provisions of a public Act of the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature of this Province or any other province of Canada, or of a committee appointed by any such board or local authority.
The publication in a newspaper or by broadcasting, at the request of a government department, bureau or office or public officer, of a report, bulletin, notice or other document issued for the information of the public shall be privileged, unless it is proved that the publication was made maliciously.
Nothing in this section applies to the publication of seditious, blasphemous or indecent matter.
(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper, the plaintiff shows that the defendant has been requested to insert in the newspaper a reasonable letter or statement of explanation or contradiction by or on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant fails to show that the defendant has done so, or
(b) in the case of publication by broadcasting, the plaintiff shows that the defendant has been requested to broadcast a reasonable statement or explanation or contradiction by or on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant fails to show that the defendant has done so, from the broadcasting stations from which the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast, on at least two occasions on different days and at the same time of day as the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast or as near as possible to that time.
Nothing in this section limits or abridges any privilege now by law existing, or applies to the publication of any matter not of public concern or the publication of which is not for the public benefit.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.10
A fair and accurate report, published in a newspaper or by broadcasting, of proceedings publicly heard before any court shall be absolutely privileged if
(a) the report contains no comment,
(b) the report is published contemporaneously with the proceedings that are the subject matter of the report or within 30 days after those proceedings, and
(c) the report contains nothing of a seditious, blasphemous or indecent nature.
Subsection (1) does not apply if,
(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper, the plaintiff shows that the defendant has been requested to insert in the newspaper a reasonable letter or statement of explanation or contradiction by or on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant fails to show that the defendant has done so, or
(b) in the case of publication by broadcasting, the plaintiff shows that the defendant has been requested to broadcast a reasonable statement of explanation or contradiction by or on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant fails to show that the defendant has done so, from the broadcasting stations from which the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast, on at least two occasions on different days and at the same time of day as the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast or as near as possible to that time.
Sections 14 to 17 apply only to actions for defamation against the proprietor or publisher of a newspaper or the owner or operator of a broadcasting station or an officer, servant or employee of a newspaper or broadcasting station in respect of defamatory matter published in that newspaper or from that broadcasting station. R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.12; 2009, c.L-8.5, s.30
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.15; 1986, c.4, s.11
The action shall be tried in the county where the chief office of the newspaper or of the owner or operator of the broadcasting station is situated, or in the county in which the plaintiff resides at the time the action is brought.
Despite subsection (1), on the application of either party, the court may direct the action to be tried, or the damages to be assessed, in any other county if it appears to be in the interests of justice, and may impose those terms as to payment of attendance money and otherwise that the court considers proper.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.16; 1987, c.6, s.16
The defendant may prove in mitigation of damages that the defamatory matter was inserted in the newspaper or was broadcast without actual gross negligence, and that before the commencement of the action, or at the earliest opportunity afterwards, the defendant
(a) inserted in the newspaper in which the defamatory matter was published a full and fair retraction of the defamatory matter and a full apology for the defamation, or, if the newspaper is one ordinarily published at intervals exceeding one week, that the defendant offered to publish the retraction and apology in a newspaper to be selected by the plaintiff, or
(b) broadcast the retraction and apology from the broadcasting stations from which the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast, on at least two occasions on different days and at the same time of day as the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast or as near as possible to that time.
The defendant may prove in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff has already brought action for, has recovered damages or has received or agreed to receive compensation in respect of defamation to the same purport or effect as that for which action is brought.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.17
The plaintiff shall recover only special damages if it appears on the trial
(a) that the alleged defamatory matter was published in good faith,
(b) that there was reasonable ground to believe that the publication of the alleged defamatory matter was for the public benefit,
(c) that it did not impute to the plaintiff the commission of a criminal offence,
(d) that the publication took place in mistake or misapprehension of the facts, and
(e) if the alleged defamatory matter
(i) was published in a newspaper, that a full and fair retraction of and a full apology for any statement in the newspaper alleged to be erroneous were published in the newspaper before the commencement of the action, and were so published in as conspicuous a place and type as was the alleged defamatory matter, or
(ii) was broadcast, that the retraction and apology were broadcast from broadcasting stations from which the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast, on at least two occasions on different days and at the same time of day as the alleged defamatory matter was broadcast or as near as possible to that time.
Subsection (1) does not apply to the case of defamation against a candidate for public office unless the retraction and apology are made editorially in the newspaper in a conspicuous manner or broadcast, as the case may require, at least five days before the election.
R.S.1973, c.D-5, s.18; 2009, c.L-8.5, s.30
No defendant in an action for defamation published in a newspaper shall be entitled to the benefit of section 16 unless the name of the proprietor and publisher and address of publication are stated in a conspicuous place in the newspaper.
The production of a printed copy of a newspaper shall be proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the publication of the printed copy and of the truth of the statements mentioned in subsection (1).
When a person, by registered letter containing that person’s address and addressed to a broadcasting station, alleges that defamation against that person has been broadcast from the station and requests the name and address of the owner or operator of the station, or the names and addresses of the owner and the operator of the station, section 16 shall not apply with respect to an action by that person against the owner or operator for the alleged defamation unless the person whose name and address are so requested delivers the requested information to the first mentioned person, or mails it by registered letter addressed to that person, within ten days after the date on which the first mentioned registered letter is received at the broadcasting station.