Bill 31 (The Defamation Act)
Second Reading

From Hansard (5 November 2025)

To view this section on video, click here and start play at 2:42:55 PM.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move second reading of The Defamation Act. Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has had a libel and slander Act since 1909, creating an action for persons who have been falsely referred to in either printed or spoken words in a way that would harm that person’s reputation. In the last 113 years the Act has been substantively amended only three times, with many of the provisions dating back to the Libel Act of 1843.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan recently undertook a review of The Libel and Slander Act with a view towards modernization. The commission conducted extensive consultations between 2022 and 2023. Its final report on how to modernize The Libel and Slander Act was released in March of 2024 and made 19 recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will replace The Libel and Slander Act with the new defamation Act that will bring Saskatchewan’s legislation in line with other Canadian jurisdictions. This bill will eliminate the distinction between libel and slander so that both actions will now be referred to as defamation. Over time the distinction between libel and slander has created arbitrary differences that result in different liability standards. Combining the two will bring uniformity and simplicity to defamation law in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will incorporate a single publication rule into the Act. This will create a sole cause of action for the publication of an expression and all republications by the same publisher. This rule will bring clarity to limitation periods and prevent the limitation period from starting over every time there is a republication.

The current Act also includes arbitrary and unnecessary distinctions between different kinds of publishers. The bill eliminates these distinctions. This change fulfills one of the main recommendations in the commission’s report.

For example, the bill maintains the provisions respecting privilege and expands the privilege for fair and accurate reporting beyond newspapers to instead apply to all publishers. This bill also includes a new privilege for peer-reviewed material.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill expands remedies beyond monetary damages. With new methods of publishing, monetary compensation does not always reflect the harm done by libel and slander. For example, an online publication may continue to exist in a variety of locations even though the initial publication has been removed. The bill includes provisions permitting orders to be made against internet intermediaries to remove publications from any platform and to have publications de-indexed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of The Defamation Act.

---

Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice
From Hansard (13 April 2026)

To view this section on video, click here and start play at 3:37:25 PM.

Clause 1

Chair B. McLeod: — And we will first consider Bill No. 31, The Defamation Act, beginning with consideration of clause 1, short title.

Minister McLeod is here with his officials, and I would ask that officials introduce themselves before they speak for the first time. And no need to touch the microphones; a Hansard operator will turn them on and off for you when you speak. So let’s begin. Minister, please introduce your officials and make your opening comments.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Well thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. Joining me for Bill 31 and Bill 32, I have to my left Darcy McGovern, K.C. [King’s Counsel], legal executive director, public law division with the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. And to my right, Maria Markatos, K.C., director of legislative services branch, Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer some opening remarks concerning Bill 31, The Defamation Act. Bill 31 will repeal and replace the existing libel and slander Act with a new Act. The new Act will incorporate recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan to update and modernize the law of defamation in Saskatchewan.

The new Act will define defamation to include both libel and slander, reflecting the approach taken in most other Canadian jurisdictions and by the courts. Over time the distinction between libel and slander has created arbitrary differences. Combining the two will bring simplicity and uniformity to the law of defamation in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Chair, the new Act will eliminate distinctions between different kinds of publishers, making application of this Act and the defences and remedies available the same, regardless of whether the alleged defamation occurred in print or online.

Where defamation is proven, damages are available to the plaintiff in an amount determined by the court. The new Act includes take down and de-indexing remedies to reflect the harm that may be done by modern online publishing. The new Act will maintain the existing privilege exceptions and add a new defence for peer-reviewed material.

Mr. Chair, a House amendment will be presented to add a new clause 4. The new clause will codify the common law in Canada that says once defamation is proven, damages are presumed. The onus then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a defence to the defamation or mitigation of damages. While damages are presumed, the value of such damages must still be determined by the court based on factors including the plaintiff’s conduct, the plaintiff’s position and standing, and the mode and extent of the publication.

Mr. Chair, with those opening remarks, I welcome any questions respecting Bill 31, The Defamation Act.

Chair B. McLeod: — Thank you, Minister. I will now open the floor to questions. I recognize MLA Sarauer.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks. Let’s first talk about the House amendment that you are putting forward. You mentioned that this amendment will be codifying what already exists in common law. Does this codification exist anywhere else in Canada and, if so, where?

Maria Markatos: — I’m Maria Markatos, Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. There are several jurisdictions that codify this provision, including Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, all of the territories, and Newfoundland. And of course, where it’s not codified the common law would apply, so BC [British Columbia], Ontario, and Nova Scotia, as well as Saskatchewan until this Act comes into force.

Nicole Sarauer: — As has been mentioned, this legislation is the result of consultation that occurred through the Law Reform Commission, and they created a report, the Final Report on Reform of The Libel and Slander Act. This House amendment was not included as one of the recommendations. Do you have any idea why that’s the case?

Maria Markatos: — It wasn’t explicitly included as one of the recommendations, but it was raised after the fact by members of the Law Reform Commission and will be included as an abundance of caution, just so there’s no question whether or not that common-law provision would apply in Saskatchewan.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. Moving on the entirety of the bill, could you speak a bit more about the work that the Law Reform Commission did in creating the report?

Darcy McGovern: — Darcy McGovern. So the Law Reform Commission released a consultation report on the project in June of 2022. The consultations ran from June ’22 to March 2023. There was feedback received from, you know, from a number of fronts, including the Law Society of Saskatchewan. There were specific survey responses, and a working group was held to more specifically deal with some of the defamation issues.

The written comments were also received from the Canadian Media Lawyers Association, a law prof from a different common-law province, and the office of public registry’s administration. The CBA [Canadian Bar Association] didn’t take a particular position on it with respect to the survey, or didn’t respond, I guess, is more properly . . . So we’re of the view that there was a fairly broad consultation conducted by the Law Reform Commission.

And as you know, the initiation for the project, this is a piece of legislation that’s been around since 1909, The Libel and Slander Act. It’s only been amended one or two times since then. And the reality that the Law Reform Commission, I think, initiated from was to say that when libel was articulated within this legislation, newspapers were the whole game.

And of course we live in a multimedia environment now. And there was a need to both recognize that libel and slander, that the distinctions that used to be made didn’t make any sense anymore, would be better to treat it all as defamation and then to seek to accommodate the reality that a lot of this occurs online.

And so you will have noticed in the bill we’ve included provisions for take-down remedies so that there’s something that recognizes that, in that environment, there can be quickly spread an untrue statement that has a devastating effect on a person’s reputation, and that it needs to go beyond just simply saying that there’s a fine.

Nicole Sarauer: — Also mentioned in the Law Reform Commission report is the existence of recommendations through the Uniform Law Conference. Can you speak to those as well?

Darcy McGovern: — The Uniform Law Conference position with respect to libel is similar with respect to libel and slander in the broad strokes, that they eliminate the difference between libel and slander, that they call for a modernization of the provisions. So we feel that this is consistent with that entirely. But of course the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan is more specific to Saskatchewan with respect to our existing legislation and the case law in the province.

[15:45]

Nicole Sarauer: — In drafting this legislation did the ministry conduct any additional consultations in addition to what the Law Reform Commission already did?

Darcy McGovern: — No, and as you know, having a report issued for consultation in 2022 and being here on the floor three or four years later is actually moving quite quick in that environment. And so that was one of the advantages here, was that we were able to piggyback on the consultation that was done by the Law Reform Commission.

Nicole Sarauer: — The Law Reform Commission’s report contains 19 recommendations for modernizing The Libel and Slander Act. Were all of those recommendations followed?

Darcy McGovern: — The one that was not was with respect to SLAPP [strategic lawsuit against public participation]. And this was a decision that was made in terms of looking at it, that while it’s fair for the Law Reform Commission to raise the issues in general terms, the empirical basis for that in Saskatchewan was difficult to establish.

As the member’s aware and the members will be aware, our Court of King’s Bench is known for being vigilant and to making sure that there is no abuse of their process before them. For example, section 7-9 of the Rules of Court provide that an order could be made with respect to amending or striking out pleadings if it discloses no reasonable claim or defence; is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, immaterial; prejudice or delay or otherwise abuse of the court. That’s separate from the costs’ provisions as well as the vexatious proceedings.

So until such time as there’s an empirical basis for that, and given our confidence in the court in this regard, we didn’t make a recommendation within the ministry for that change to be made as well.

Nicole Sarauer: — I did notice that that was the only recommendation that was followed. It seemed a little strange to me that it was the only one not followed out of the 19 recommendations. And as the minister’s well aware, anti-SLAPP legislation already exists in Ontario, BC, and Quebec.

The Uniform Law Conference has also recommended it so that there’s uniformity across jurisdictions. It’s something that I have introduced as a private member’s bill, I think three times now. So it’s something that I have heard from stakeholders, that it’s something that they would like to see enacted in Saskatchewan.

So my question is, in light of the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission and the Uniform Law Conference and of course, as you’re well aware, the advocacy we have done in the opposition for this, why not use this as an opportunity to provide anti-SLAPP protection for the people of Saskatchewan?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — I would say the door isn’t slammed on the conversation about anti- SLAPP legislation. However we do have, as Darcy mentioned, the utmost confidence in the court and its process to navigate and deal with frivolous and vexatious claims, which ultimately we’d be talking about the same thing.

And so leaving that in the hands of the court for the judiciary to decide, given the Rules of Court that Darcy cited, we think that sufficiently covers it.

Nicole Sarauer: — Because it’s something that we feel is important and it was included in the Law Reform Commission, just for the committee’s ease, I’m going to read that section of the report into the record. Then we can move on to the next stages of the committee.

So this is section M, Anti-SLAPP Legislation, and this is from the final report on reform of The Libel and Slander Act that was created by the Law Reform Commission. And again this is the only recommendation that wasn’t included in this legislation that’s in front of us this afternoon.

And they said:

Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec have each enacted anti-SLAPP, which is strategic lawsuits against public participation, legislative provisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has described SLAPPs as follows:

Strategic lawsuits against public participation are a phenomenon used to describe exactly what the acronym refers to: lawsuits initiated against individuals or organizations that speak out or take a position on an issue of public interest. SLAPPs are generally initiated by plaintiffs who engage the court process and use litigation not as a direct tool to vindicate a bona fide claim, but as an indirect tool to limit the expression of others. In a SLAPP the claim is merely a facade for the plaintiff, who is in fact manipulating the judicial system in order to limit the effectiveness of the opposing party’s speech and deter that party or other potential interested parties from participating in public affairs.

It is worth noting that SLAPP suits are not limited to defamation suits; however defamation is commonly relied on in these types of claims.

In essence, these types of provisions allow a defendant to a defamation claim to seek dismissal of the claim in a preliminary proceeding on the basis that the defendant’s expression is on a matter of public interest. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff then must establish that the claim has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence. The plaintiff also must establish that the harm likely to be suffered from the defendant’s expression is “sufficiently serious” and outweighs the public interest in defending the defendant’s freedom of expression.

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada has adopted a Uniform Protection of Public Participation Act (2017) and recommended its implementation to all jurisdictions in Canada. Saskatchewan has not yet enacted anti-SLAPP legislation based on the Uniform Act.

In the Consultation Report, the Commission asked whether perceived — or actual — abuse of defamation claims with respect to matters of public interest are a concern in Saskatchewan, and if so, how should this concern be addressed.

Consultees were largely of the view that Saskatchewan should enact anti-SLAPP legislation similar to the legislation in place in Ontario and BC. The Commission is also of the view that anti-SLAPP legislation is the preferred method of addressing concerns surrounding frivolous and trivial defamation claims.

The Commission recommends Saskatchewan consider enacting anti-SLAPP legislation.

This was quoted from pages 62 and 63 of the report.

So, Minister, I hear what you’re saying. I understand and also respect of course the work of the courts of Saskatchewan in the consultation that the Law Reform Commission did. The respondents, according to the report, said that they were largely of the view that Saskatchewan should, in spite of this, still enact anti-SLAPP legislation similar to what’s already in place, and that it is the preferred method of addressing concerns surrounding frivolous and trivial defamation claims.

When I first heard about this as an issue and as a gap in legislation in Saskatchewan, it was several years ago. But it was in light of some individuals who had raised concerns about sexual harassment in a public sphere and had been met with defamation suits in response to that and had effectively been silenced by those defamation suits.

They came to me in a gender-based violence context to talk about the need for anti-SLAPP legislation. Of course there’s a lot of other ways that anti-SLAPP legislation could be used, arguably beneficially for the people of the province. And again it was a part of the recommendations.

So I hear what you’re saying. I just wanted to put the concerns on the record. I don’t know if you have anything else you want to add.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thank you. No, and I think the point is well made. And as I said, the conversation isn’t closed.

These types of allegations are very serious allegations and where there’s an ulterior motive for a lawsuit. Again I’ll reiterate that we have the utmost respect for the court’s independence, and we have confidence in the King’s Bench’s own processes to address frivolous and vexatious claims.

Scandalous claims are specifically addressed in the Rules of Court. Where there is an ulterior motive it’s, I believe, appropriate for the judges to exercise their judicial independence and their discretion to identify those ulterior motives and address them accordingly.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. No further questions.

Chair B. McLeod: — Seeing no more questions, we will proceed to vote on the clauses. And I must say that I know each ministry and department has their own acronyms that they throw around, and thank you for actually saying the names of some of them as well. So we got an education here tonight as well, so we appreciate that. Anyway we’ll proceed.

Clause 1, short title, is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.

[Clause 1 agreed to.]

[Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive agreed to.]

Chair B. McLeod: — MLA Martens.

Clause 4

Hon. Jamie Martens: — Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move a new clause.

Chair B. McLeod: — MLA Martens has moved new clause 4. Would any members like to speak to the new clause? Oh, I’m sorry. You haven’t given me the motion.

Hon. Jamie Martens: — No worries. Thank you.

New Clause 4 of the printed Bill

Add the following Clause after Clause 3 of the printed Bill:

“Presumption of damage
4 An action lies for defamation and in a defamation action, if defamation is proved, damage shall be presumed”.

Chair B. McLeod: — Do committee members agree with the amendment as read?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried. Now is new clause 4 agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.

[Clause 4 agreed to.]

Chair B. McLeod: — His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Defamation Act.

I would ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 31, The Defamation Act with amendment. MLA Martens moves. Is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried. Any closing comments by the minister? Please.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — I’ll reserve my closing comments for the conclusion after we deal with the next bill.

Chair B. McLeod: — Any closing comments from other members? Same. Thank you very much. So are we needing a recess to check out or change, switch out officials?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — We have one other bill, Mr. Chair.

[16:00]

Chair B. McLeod: — We have one other bill, but just, you need any other officials?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — No, same officials.

Chair B. McLeod: — Fair enough.

---

Back to 2025/2026 Session