Canadian Defamation Law - Quebec

Quebec

The civil code of Quebec has different parameters for liability which the Supreme Court of Canada applies in appeals from Quebec.

In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. After Quebec, then called New France, became part of the British Empire, the French civil law was preserved. However, by the mid-nineteenth century, judges in what by then had come to be called Lower Canada held that principles of freedom of expression inherent in the unwritten British Constitution over-rode French civil law in matters of public interest, and incorporated various defenses of the English common law, such as the defense of fair comment, into the local law. Such references to British law became more problematic in the Twentieth Century, with some judges and academics arguing that the basic principles of the civil law gave rise to similar defenses without need to refer to English case law or principle.

The Civil Code of Quebec does not have specific provisions relating to an action in defamation. Therefore, the general rules of extra-contractual responsibility established by article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec apply.

To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury, a wrongful act, and of a causal connection between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Therefore, communicating false information is not, in itself, a wrongful act.

In the case of Andre Arthur et al. v. Robert Gillet (SCC Docket 30769), the Court ruled that Quebec's law exempted broadly racist comments by someone with a reputation for making same, and that accordingly MP-and-radio-host Arthur had no liability for comments against Quebec City cabdrivers.

It stated flatly that racism was not a matter to be debated or decided in courts, at least not in Quebec.

Quebec's anti-SLAPP law further exempts political and public issue comment almost entirely from liability, an approach that is broadly advocated (see SLAPP studies above) to be emulated in common law jurisdictions.

In 1994, the Court of Appeal of Quebec has held that defamation in Quebec must be governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to the strict liability standard that is applicable in the English common law; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.

However, in upholding the responsible communication defense in Torstar v. Grant, the Supreme Court of Canada also flatly rejected the strict liability standard in common law jurisdictions as well.