Apologies in Defamation Cases: A Gesture That’s More Symbolic Than Legal?

1. What is Defamation?

In Québec, courts recognize that harm to reputation can occur in three ways:

• When a person makes unpleasant statements knowing they are false;
• When a person disseminates unpleasant or harmful information about someone while they should know it is false;
• When a person makes unfavorable but truthful statements about a third party without valid justification.

Defamation therefore refers to any communication, whether verbal or written, that unjustly harms another person’s reputation and is likely to provoke contempt, hatred, or ridicule toward them.

Regardless of its form, a defamation claim depends on compliance with the general principles of civil liability: the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of harm, fault, and a causal link between the fault and the alleged harm. In Québec, a defamation claim is also subject to a one-year limitation period (shorter than the general three-year period), which begins when the injured party becomes aware of the defamatory statements.

2. Can a Court Compel the Author of Defamatory Statements to Apologize?

In cases of defamation, an apology can often serve as a symbolic and restorative “remedy” for the victim of the wrongful statements. That said, from a legal standpoint, the possibility for a court to order an apology raises significant issues. Generally, Québec courts are reluctant to issue such orders.
This reluctance stems mainly from the absence of an explicit legal basis authorizing a court to compel apologies. No statute expressly provides for such a measure, unlike, for example, the awarding of damages.

Moreover, one may question the true impact of court-imposed apologies. For instance, the Superior Court has refused to order the author of defamatory statements to send an apology letter to the victim, noting that such a measure was inappropriate since the author did not believe in such an “act of contrition.” In that case, the court also questioned the appropriateness of such an order, referring to a Court of Appeal decision that raised doubts about the legitimacy of compelling someone to “acknowledge conduct they deny having engaged in.” Similar concerns have been raised by courts in other Canadian provinces.

In some cases, Québec courts have considered that simply publishing the judgment mitigates the need for an apology, as court decisions are generally public (subject to exceptions).
Beyond issues of effectiveness and the lack of explicit legislative authority, this question also raises concerns about freedom of expression, a fundamental right protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, recent case law shows that courts tend to conclude that compelling apologies infringes this right when the author does not do so voluntarily.

Finally, without a clear proposed text, it is difficult for a court to issue an order requiring the publication or drafting of an apology letter, as such an order must be sufficiently precise to be enforceable. The Superior Court has refused to order apologies in the absence of a suggested text, concluding that the wording should “be subject to adversarial debate or, better yet, be agreed upon by the parties,” and that it was not the court’s role to draft it “in the secrecy of its deliberations.”

Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, courts have agreed to order apologies. For example, in a 2019 case involving defamatory videos posted on social media that were found to be false and insulting, the Superior Court ordered the responsible party to apologize on various social networks, specifying that the videos were inaccurate and defamatory. In another, older case, the court deemed it justified to order the drafting of an apology letter and its posting in a visible location, given the seriousness of the statements and the need to encourage the author to adopt a more measured attitude in the future. Similarly, the court has imposed the publication of an apology letter, but only if the offending party reactivated the website or any similar site where the defamatory statements had been made.

Such orders appear rare in recent case law. Courts seem to favor awarding damages and issuing orders to stop defamatory statements or remove harmful content. These measures, however, depend on the conclusions sought by the plaintiff in their pleadings.

Thus, in defamation matters, publishing apologies will generally not be the preferred legal solution given the issues it raises. A party wishing to pursue this route must be prepared to face these challenges, notably by drafting clear conclusions in their legal proceedings. In any case, other remedies remain available, such as orders to cease wrongful conduct, whether after a full hearing or, if necessary, at the preliminary stage.

For any questions, feel free to contact our litigation team, who will be happy to assist you.