Grigoras Law

05/22/2026

https://thehub.ca/2026/05/20/cbc-funded-prank-shows-deceptive-tactics-raise-fraud-and-legal-concerns-lawyer/

“The satire defence protects publications that convey their satirical character to the audience; it does not protect publications that deliberately disguise their nature.” - Denis Grigoras, Toronto-based civil litigation and defamation lawyer at Grigoras Law The Hub Canada's senior editor, Graem...

05/19/2026

A senior executive learns of a promising business deal through their corporate role. Can they pursue it personally, or does it belong to the company?

It is one of the trickiest questions in Canadian commercial law, and getting it wrong can be enormously expensive. A director or senior officer who quietly diverts a business opportunity to themselves can be ordered by a court to hand over every dollar of profit they made, even if the company itself could never have done the deal, and even if the executive resigned before pursuing the opportunity.
We have just published an in-depth article on the law of corporate opportunity in Canada, covering:

⚖️ The Supreme Court of Canada's leading decisions in Canaero and Peso
🤝 When the fiduciary duty continues to apply even after a director or officer resigns
🏢 When a new company set up to receive a diverted opportunity can itself be sued
💰 The powerful remedies available to companies: forced repayment of profits, constructive trusts over assets, and emergency court orders
🛡️ Practical guidance for executives navigating real-time decisions, and for companies that suspect a former officer has misappropriated an opportunity

For executives, board members, business owners, and anyone interested in the rules governing fiduciary loyalty in Canadian business law.

Read it here: https://grigoraslaw.com/appropriation-corporate-opportunity-canada-director-officer-fiduciary-duty

05/17/2026

Thinking about buying a franchise? The decision deserves more analysis than it usually gets.
A franchise is one of the biggest financial commitments most business people will ever make. The initial investment can run from a few hundred thousand dollars to well over a million. The contract binds you for years. The personal guarantees follow you if things go wrong. And yet many prospective franchisees focus only on the brand, sign the standard form agreement, and discover the harder realities only after the money is committed.

We have just published a practical guide for anyone considering a franchise in Ontario. It walks you through:

🧠 Self-assessment: is franchising actually the right model for you?
🏢 How to evaluate a brand and a franchise system
📄 What to look for (and what should worry you) in the disclosure document
✍️ Reviewing the franchise agreement and knowing what you can negotiate
💰 Building a realistic financial model
📞 Why talking to existing and former franchisees is your single most valuable due diligence step
🚩 The red flags that should make you reconsider

If you are looking at a franchise opportunity, or you know someone who is, this guide is worth reading before signing anything.

Read it here: https://grigoraslaw.com/buying-a-franchise-ontario-prospective-franchisee-due-diligence

05/11/2026

Just received a judgment you want to appeal? The clock is already running, and it's shorter than most people think.

The deadlines for filing civil appeals in Ontario vary dramatically depending on the court and the type of order. Some appeals must be commenced within 7 days. Most have 30. Applications for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada have 60. And the moment the judge delivers the decision, the countdown begins — even if the formal order has not yet been signed.

We have just published a comprehensive article on civil appeal deadlines in Ontario, covering:

⏰ Every applicable deadline from 7 days to 60 days, and the courts and order types each one applies to
📅 How the clock is calculated (and the common mistake of waiting for the formal order)
💰 What happens when costs are decided after the merits — one of the most expensive timing traps in Ontario civil litigation
🚪 What to do if you have already missed the deadline and need to seek an extension

If you are facing an adverse judgment, or you simply want to understand how the appeals system works in Ontario, this article is for you.

Read it here: https://grigoraslaw.com/civil-appeal-deadlines-ontario-time-limits

05/09/2026

Your VP of Sales just resigned. Within 48 hours, three of your top customers have been "coincidentally" contacted by a competitor. What do you do?

This is one of the most common business emergencies in Ontario, and the first 72 hours often determine whether you can save the customer relationships, recover what was taken, and stop the competitive threat before it materializes.

We have just published a comprehensive guide for business owners and executives on what to do when a senior employee leaves and you suspect they have taken confidential information, customer relationships, or other employees with them.

The article walks through:

📋 What employees can and cannot legally do in the lead-up to resignation
⏰ A practical first-72-hours checklist (lock down access, preserve evidence, investigate)
⚖️ The legal tools available (urgent court injunctions, search orders, freezing orders)
🛡️ How to set your business up so you are protected before this ever happens

Whether you are a business owner who has just been blindsided by a senior departure, or an executive who wants to understand what really happens in these situations, this guide is for you.

Read it here:

05/06/2026

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are claims brought less to win than to drain. The defendant runs out of money or appetite before the merits are ever reached, and the speech that prompted the suit goes quiet.

Ontario's response is section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. It lets a defendant move early to dismiss any proceeding that arises from expression on a matter of public interest, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show real harm and substantial merit. Get past that threshold, and the case continues. Fail it, and the action ends with full indemnity costs presumed.

Our latest Information Portal guide walks through the test, the public-interest threshold, the merits and weighing stages, the costs consequences, and the leading Supreme Court authorities (Pointes Protection and Bent v. Platnick) that shape how the regime actually works.

05/06/2026

Pre-construction buyers in Ontario often discover that getting out of an agreement is harder than getting in. The 10-day cooling-off period is short, the material change provisions are narrow, and developer delays don't always trigger a termination right.

Our latest Information Portal guide walks through the law, the contract, and the practical questions buyers should be asking before they sign — and what their options actually look like once they have.

A note: pre-construction condo disputes aren't a core area of our practice. Our work in real property tends toward injunctive motions and fraud claims. We've written this as a public guide for buyers who want to understand the framework before they call a real estate lawyer.

Toronto condo prices have dropped sharply, leaving pre-construction buyers unable to close. This guide explains every legal exit available to Ontario buyers: cooling-off rights, improper disclosure, material change rescission, Tarion delayed closing, financing conditions, and more.

06/04/2024

Sorry, Not Sorry: Apologies & Retractions in Defamation Law

The Role of Apologies in Defamation Cases

In defamation cases, an apology may play a crucial role in the assessment of damages. However, it is important to note that courts lack the jurisdiction to order defendants to apologize. The existence of an apology, the sincerity of the defendant, and the extent of the publicity given to the apology are factors that courts consider when determining damages. If a defendant promptly and sincerely apologizes, admits to the falsity of the statement, and widely publicizes the apology, the impact of the libel may be significantly reduced.

On the other hand, if a defendant declines to apologize or offers an unconvincing justification for not doing so, courts may consider this as a factor that exacerbates the assessment of damages. Apologies made just before the trial or those perceived as insincere, dismissive, or inadequately timed and presented corrections will not carry any significance in determining damages.

It is essential to note that a failure to apologize does not always increase damages, as the court will evaluate the significance of this failure based on the specific circumstances of the case. If a defendant has pleaded justification or fair comment, their failure to apologize may be consistent with a sincere belief in their position, even if their defences ultimately fail.

Crafting a Clear and Unequivocal Apology

An effective apology must be clear, unequivocal, and rehabilitate the plaintiff’s reputation to the greatest extent possible. A retraction should clearly state that the defendant published incorrect information. In some cases, an apology may expose the defendant to a complaint by a third party. Defendants must carefully craft their apologies to avoid defaming third parties if possible. Lawyers may face liability if they participate in drafting an apology that defames a third party, and involving the third party in the negotiation of the apology’s terms may be appropriate.

Apology Legislation

Apology legislation has been introduced in many provinces and territories to facilitate the making of apologies as a means of promoting early and beneficial dispute resolution in civil cases. This legislation generally states that apologies are not considered express or implied admissions of civil liability and cannot be used to determine fault or liability in a matter. Courts have applied this rule narrowly, and lawyers advising clients on apologies should be cautious in recommending language that contains statements of fact beyond what is strictly necessary.

Retractions Restricting Plaintiff to Actual Damages

Provincial and territorial statutes may restrict plaintiffs in defamation cases involving newspapers or broadcasts to the recovery of “actual” or “special” damages, provided that the defendant publishes an apology within a specified time and follows prescribed conditions. Actual or special damages refer to specific losses that can be proven, as opposed to general damages, which are assessed based on the circumstances of the case.

These statutory provisions apply to a limited class of libels, requiring that the defamatory matter be published in good faith, not involve a criminal charge, and in Ontario, be published due to a mistake or misapprehension of the facts. In Ontario, a “full and fair retraction” must be published in the manner specified by the provisions for the plaintiff to be restricted to actual or special damages.

Publishing Retractions and Apologies

In Ontario, retractions and apologies must be published in as conspicuous a place and type as the original defamatory matter. For newspapers, the retraction must be published either in the next regular issue or within three days after the plaintiff’s libel notice. For broadcasts, the retraction must be published either within a reasonable time or within three days after the plaintiff’s libel notice, and as conspicuously as the original libel.

Additional Timing Requirements for Public Office Candidates

In cases where the plaintiff is a candidate for public office, additional timing requirements apply. The retraction or retraction and apology must be published in the newspaper or broadcast, as the case may be, at least five days before the election in which the plaintiff is a candidate. This ensures that the retraction is made public and has the opportunity to mitigate any potential harm to the plaintiff’s reputation before the election takes place.

The Importance of Statutory Formalities

To benefit from provisions that limit a plaintiff to actual or special damages where a retraction is published in prescribed circumstances, defendants must comply with statutory formalities. These formalities ensure that potential plaintiffs have the necessary information to address a defamatory statement with the newspaper or broadcaster.

In Ontario, newspapers must provide the names of the proprietor and publisher, along with the address of publication, either at the head of the editorials or on the front page of the newspaper. For defamation in a broadcast, when a person alleging defamation by a broadcasting station requests the name and address of the owner or operator of the station through a registered letter, the owner or operator must deliver that information or send it by registered mail to the person requesting it within 10 days of receipt of the request.

Waiver of Time Requirements

A plaintiff may choose to waive the time requirement for publishing a retraction, either expressly or through their conduct. For instance, waiver by conduct may occur if the plaintiff demands that the retraction be published in a specific section of a newspaper that is not scheduled to appear until after the statutory time period has lapsed. By making such a demand, the plaintiff effectively waives the time requirement, allowing the defendant additional time to publish the retraction.

The Role of Apology Legislation

Apology legislation has been introduced in many provinces and territories to facilitate the making of apologies as a means of promoting early and beneficial dispute resolution in civil cases. This legislation stipulates that an apology with respect to a matter is not considered an express or implied admission of civil liability, does not affect insurance or indemnity coverage, and may not be taken into account when determining fault or liability in the matter.

Courts have applied the statutory rule narrowly, and counsel advising on apologies should take care to avoid recommending forms of apology that contain statements of fact beyond those strictly necessary. This ensures that the apology serves its intended purpose and does not inadvertently cause further legal issues.

Conclusion

In Ontario defamation law, apologies and retractions can significantly resolve disputes and mitigate damages. A defendant’s prompt and sincere apology can have a substantial impact on the plaintiff’s damages, while a failure to apologize or a delayed apology may increase the plaintiff’s damages or prolong the litigation process. Understanding the nuances of apology and retraction requirements can be essential for both plaintiffs and defendants in defamation cases, and legal counsel should be well-versed in these matters to effectively advise their clients.

Example: Bird v. Ontario

In the case of Bird v. Ontario, a lawyer sued a conservation officer and the province, seeking damages for a defamatory voicemail message left by the officer for her client. The plaintiff was representing a client charged with offences under the Fisheries Act and Provincial Offences Act, with charges laid by the defendant conservation officer. A plea bargain was negotiated, but the client instructed the plaintiff not to accept the offer. The defendant, concerned that the client was unaware of the offer, called the client and left the impugned message, in which he questioned the client’s lawyer’s competence.

The court found that the statement “I basically feel your lawyer is pretty much incompetent” was defamatory and held the province vicariously liable for the conservation officer’s actions. The defendant claimed that his reason for leaving the message was concern about the expiration of the plea bargain, though he admitted it was not his normal practice to make such calls. The court determined that the defendant, as a peace officer with involvement in the case, did not have a moral duty to make the call and failed to establish the defence of qualified privilege.

The court also noted that only the client heard the message, which limited the publication of the defamatory statement. While the plaintiff’s competence as a lawyer was the cornerstone of her professional reputation, the court found that she had not been materially harmed by the defamation. The defendant expressed regret for the message but did not offer a clear and unequivocal apology. As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages.

However, the court did not award any aggravated damages, as malice was not pled in the case. Additionally, the defendant’s conduct was not deemed to be so malicious, oppressive, or high-handed as to warrant punitive damages. Thus, the court allowed the action only in part, awarding the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages without awarding any aggravated or punitive damages.

[https://grigoraslaw.com/sorry-not-sorry-apologies-retractions-in-defamation-law]

06/04/2024

Proving Truth: How to Use the Justification Defence in Defamation Cases

Introduction

Defamation law often distinguishes between protecting an individual’s reputation and upholding freedom of expression. In this intricate legal landscape, the defence of justification, or truth, plays a pivotal role. This detailed exploration aims to provide an in-depth understanding of what it entails for a defendant to use truth as a shield against defamation claims.

The Fundamental Premise of Defamation and Justification

In defamation law, statements harmful to a person’s reputation are presumed false. This presumption places a significant burden on defendants who claim justification. They must challenge this presumption and conclusively prove the truth of the defamatory statements.

The Burden of Proof: A Critical Responsibility

When invoking justification, the defendant bears the onus of demonstrating the factual accuracy of the defamatory words. This task goes beyond mere allegations; it requires tangible evidence that the essence of the defamation is rooted in truth.

Understanding the “Sting” of Defamatory Words

The legal concept of the “sting” of defamatory words is central to this defence. It encompasses both the explicit and the implied defamatory meanings. The defendant’s objective is to establish the substantial truth of this sting. It’s not about proving every word true but validating the core defamatory claim.

The Role of Minor Inaccuracies

An interesting aspect of justification is how the law treats minor inaccuracies. Minor factual errors won’t invalidate the defence if the defendant successfully proves the main allegation. This approach underscores the law’s focus on substantive truth rather than pedantic accuracy.

The Complexities and Challenges of Justification

Justification as a defence is multifaceted, involving several nuanced aspects that defendants need to navigate.

The Irrelevance of the Defendant’s State of Mind

One unique feature is that the defendant’s state of mind or motives are irrelevant to the defence’s success. Whether driven by malice or uncertainty about the truth, the defence stands if the sting of the defamation is true.

The “Repetition Rule” and Its Implications

The “repetition rule” is a crucial element. It stipulates that merely echoing another’s defamatory statement does not exempt the defendant from the need to prove its truth. This rule serves to prevent defendants from circumventing responsibility by claiming they were only repeating others.

Justifying Suspicions and Investigations

When defamation involves suspicion of wrongdoing, the defendant must present evidence supporting the reasonableness of such suspicion. This requires demonstrating that the plaintiff’s conduct could have reasonably led to suspicion without relying on hearsay or third-party beliefs.

The Intricacies of Multiple Charges

In situations with several defamatory allegations, the defendant can attempt to justify each one. If some, but not all, allegations are proven true, this can reduce damages. However, in places like Ontario and Nova Scotia, partial justification might offer a complete defence if the unproven parts do not significantly harm the plaintiff’s reputation in light of the proven allegations.

The Concept of Partial Truth

Partially proving the truth of a defamatory statement complicates matters. It can mitigate damages but doesn’t fully negate the defamation. This partial truth acknowledges the defendant’s effort to substantiate some aspects of their claim while still holding them accountable for the unverified parts.

The Challenge of Justifying Comments

Justifying statements that include comments is particularly challenging. It requires proving the factual basis of the comments and their correctness. This is a heavier burden than the usual fair comment defence and is seldom attempted due to its complexity.

Conclusion: The Delicate Balance in Defamation Defence

The defence of justification in defamation law is a nuanced and intricate aspect of legal practice. It requires a delicate balance between the right to free expression and the protection of individual reputation. This defence emphasizes the importance of truth as a cornerstone of justice, yet it is bound by stringent standards to ensure its appropriate application.

Navigating the legal intricacies of justification necessitates a deep understanding of defamation law and strategic legal thinking. Each case’s unique facts significantly influence the outcome, highlighting the importance of expert legal counsel in these matters. This defence, rooted in the principle that truth should be a shield against defamation, remains a testament to the complex interplay between facts, law, and the pursuit of justice in the realm of defamation.

[https://grigoraslaw.com/proving-truth-how-to-use-the-justification-defence-in-defamation-cases]

06/04/2024

Can You Sue Google for a Defamatory Google Review?

Online Platform Liability in Canada and the U.S.

Introduction

In the interesting recent Ontario case of Thorpe v. Boakye, the court examined the potential liability of online platforms like Google regarding user-generated content, specifically defamatory reviews. This case sheds light on Canadian legal perspectives and contrasts sharply with the U.S. legal approach, particularly under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Background of Thorpe v. Boakye

Thorpe v. Boakye involved a dispute between Collette Thorpe and Yunaland Inc. (the plaintiffs) against Audrey Boakye and Google LLC. The case revolves around the alleged defamatory reviews posted on Google’s Local Reviews platform, which the plaintiffs argue have damaged their business reputation.

Facts of the Case

Yunaland Inc. is a daycare business, and Collette Thorpe is Yunaland’s only director. Initially, Audrey Boakye, a former customer of the daycare, posted a Google review with false information about Yunaland on Google’s platform. After this review was removed, further negative reviews emerged from Boakye’s husband and other unknown persons. The crux of the issue centred around Yunaland’s subsequent demand for Google to remove these defamatory reviews, a request that Google resisted unless Yunaland first obtained a court order declaring the reviews defamatory.

Relief Sought on the Motion

Yunaland sued Boakye and Google (and a few others involved in the defamatory Google Reviews) for defamation. Yunaland’s argument for including Google in the defamation claim hinged on the premise that Google, by hosting the reviews, was effectively acting as a “publisher” of defamatory content. Google’s defence rested on the claim that it was not responsible as it neither authored nor had editorial control over the reviews – it neither authored nor published those reviews. Google brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the defamation claim against it. (A summary judgment motion is a motion to obtain a judgment in cases where there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence advanced in the litigation.)

Legal Analysis

Ontario’s Approach to Defamation

Publisher Responsibility: The Ontario court grappled with whether Google’s role as a platform equated to it being a publisher of the content.

Notice and Action: A key aspect was whether Google’s knowledge of the defamatory content and subsequent inaction could establish its liability as a publisher.

Complexities in Digital Publishing: The case focuses on the nuanced issues surrounding digital platforms’ responsibilities when user-generated content is potentially defamatory. It was undisputed that the statements posted on Google’s Local Reviews platform were defamatory and pertained to Yunaland. The evidence presented in the motion highlighted a real question of fact, or a combination of fact and law, regarding whether Google, in its role as an online broadcaster, was responsible for publishing the content of the reviews on its Local Reviews platform. Furthermore, there existed a significant question of fact, or of mixed fact and law, concerning whether the reviews were inherently defamatory and if Google, once notified of their defamatory nature, was obligated to remove them.
Dismissal of Summary Judgment

Need for Detailed Examination: Based on that analysis, the court refused to grant summary judgment in Google’s favour, which underscores the complexities and the need for a full trial to delve into these issues thoroughly. Although the issue is still to be determined, the case leaves open the possibility that an online platform, like Google, can be sued as a publisher for defamatory reviews hosted on its platform that it does not remove.
U.S. Jurisprudence Under the CDA

The outcome in Thorpe v. Boakye underscores the difference in Canadian defamation law compared to our American counterparts. In the United States, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) plays a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape for online platforms like Google, especially in the context of user-generated content. Section 230 of the CDA provides these platforms with a robust shield, effectively absolving them of liability for the information posted by users. This aspect of the law is deeply rooted in the American emphasis on free speech, influencing the broad interpretation of platform protections against defamation claims. A key area of ongoing legal debate in the U.S. involves wrestling with the definition of “publication” in the digital age, a discussion that critically affects the extent of immunity under Section 230.

Comparative Analysis: Ontario vs. U.S. Jurisprudence

Recent legal challenges in the U.S. have begun to question the breadth of this immunity, particularly in relation to platforms’ editorial actions, such as targeted recommendations or content curation. In stark contrast, Canadian jurisprudence, as evidenced in the Thorpe v. Boakye case, adopts a different stance. Unlike the blanket immunity provided in the U.S., Canadian courts do not automatically exempt online platforms from liability and may consider them liable as publishers. This is particularly the case when platforms are aware of the defamatory nature of the content they host. Thus, the CDA in the U.S. offers extensive protections to platforms from being held liable for user-generated content, a stark contrast to the more plaintiff-friendly approach seen in Canadian law.

Conclusion

For now, Thorpe v. Boakye serves as a pivotal case in understanding the evolving legal landscape around digital platform liability. It highlights a significant divergence between Canadian and U.S. legal systems in handling online defamation. Canadian courts appear more open to considering platforms like Google as publishers and thus potentially liable, whereas U.S. law, under the CDA, leans heavily towards protecting these platforms from such liabilities. This case exemplifies the broader legal and societal challenges in balancing free speech, platform responsibility, and individual rights in the digital era.

[https://grigoraslaw.com/can-you-sue-google-for-a-defamatory-google-review]