Our Defamation and Reputation Management Group is comprised of Toronto lawyers whose practices focus on the litigation fields in which defamation actions typically arise. These practice areas include corporate/banking law, municipal law, employment law, and investigation and privacy law.
Allegations of libel and slander can also arise during disputes between members of professional associations or as a result of media releases.
Because defamation is a unique and complex area of civil litigation where the law frequently changes and special strategic considerations come to bear, we have entered into an affiliation with Mr. David Potts, co-author of Canadian Libel Practice. David is a senior and respected barrister with a practice that is restricted to this area of the law. He is available to assist members of our firm to respond promptly to complex defamation matters.
1. Defence
Our lawyers are experienced in the following matters:
2. Coverage
A primary concern of insurers and insureds is the extent to which a particular defamation claim may be covered by insurance. Our Insurance Coverage Group offers opinions to the firm's clients on a variety of insurance matters, including those pertaining to libel and slander in the context of " personal injury" wordings in CGL policies and other forms of insurance.
3. Reputation Management
Our lawyers also proactively address reputation management issues to prevent or reduce the likelihood of clients becoming embroiled in defamation actions. These services include:
First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.
In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.
The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...
In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.
In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...