Following appeals from newspaper organizations, the Ontario government decided to exclude the Libel and Slander Act from proposed amendments to the Limitations Act.

At present the Libel and Slander Act requires that a notice of libel be delivered within six weeks of the alleged libel coming to the attention of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff commence action within three months.

Under changes proposed in a draft document released in mid-2000, failure to comply with the time prescribed for delivering a libel notice would not bar a claim unless the delay caused prejudice to the defendant; and the limitation period for commencing action would be two years from the date of discovery of the allegedly offensive material.

This was the third time in the last 15 years that a provincial government had sought to amend the Limitations Act so as to standardize limitation periods for a wide variety of legal actions. Previous governments proposed similar amendments in 1984 and 1991. The last time they were being considered, the Ontario Press Council, Canadian Daily Newspapers Association (now the Canadian Newspaper Association), the Toronto Sun, Radio and Television Directors Association and The Canadian Press met with Attorney General Howard Hampton to voice their opposition to inclusion of the Libel and Slander Act.

Representatives of radio stations were particularly upset at the prospect of saving audio tape for two years. Hampton said he would consider not proclaiming the libel limitation change until a review of the Libel and Slander Act was complete. As it happened the NDP government was ousted before the legislation was introduced.

The CNA sent a submission to the current government maintaining that the existing notice and limitation provisions of the Libel and Slander Act form an integral part of libel action and serve both the interests of the media and libel complainants.

One argument against the extended limitations period is that inaccurate information might remain in a newspaper's system (subject to repeated use) for a lengthy period. Another was that there is no evidence that the current limitations have caused problems for potential litigants.

The Ontario Press Council wrote to Jim Flaherty, then the attorney general, to say it feared its role as an alternative dispute resolution body could be compromised by extension of the time limits for libel notice and commencement of action. For example, it said, newspapers concerned that their response to a complaint could later be used against them in court might choose not to meet their obligation as Council members.

"When the Council adjudicates a complaint and issues a finding that the newspaper has acted improperly, the Council's statement could become part of the evidence in a libel suit," the letter said, adding that it believes this would be clearly in conflict with the ADR role it has filled since its founding in1972.

Mr. Flaherty replied that the three-month limitation period in the Libel and Slander Act would not be affected by the new act.

TOP OF PAGE