Anti-SLAPP Laws in Canada: Ontario, BC, Quebec and Manitoba

Four Canadian provinces, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and now Manitoba, have dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation letting a defendant get a lawsuit over public interest expression dismissed early. Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces do not.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba, and the documented absence of such legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not address Quebec's broader defamation regime, covered separately, or predict how a court would rule on any specific motion.

What "Anti-SLAPP" Means and Why Only Four Provinces Have It

A SLAPP, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, is a proceeding brought less to win on the merits than to use the cost and burden of litigation to silence a critic. Ontario's own purposes clause captures the idea directly: section 137.1(1) of the Courts of Justice Act states the section exists to encourage expression on matters of public interest, promote broad participation in public interest debates, discourage the use of litigation to unduly limit such expression, and reduce its chilling effect. As of the Supreme Court of Canada's 2020 decision in Pointes Protection, only Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec had enacted anti-SLAPP legislation (1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 at para. 3). Manitoba has since become a fourth, described in its own dedicated section below.

Ontario: Courts of Justice Act, Section 137.1

Ontario's provision, in force since November 3, 2015, defines "expression" broadly at section 137.1(2) as any communication, verbal or non-verbal, public or private, whether or not directed at a person or entity. On a motion under section 137.1(3), a judge "shall" dismiss the proceeding if the moving party, the defendant, satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from expression relating to a matter of public interest. That dismissal is avoided only if the plaintiff clears both parts of section 137.1(4): showing the proceeding has substantial merit and the defendant has no valid defence with a real prospect of success, and showing that the harm the plaintiff likely suffered is serious enough that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression. Sections 137.2 through 137.5 add procedural teeth: the motion stays further steps in the case, cannot be evaded by amending the pleadings, must be heard within 60 days of the notice of motion, and a successful moving party is presumptively entitled to full indemnity costs, while damages are available against a plaintiff found to have brought the proceeding in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

The Supreme Court's Test in Pointes Protection

The Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decision in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association gives the operative framework for Ontario's test, and by structural similarity, for British Columbia's. At paragraph 18, the Court set out three stages. First, the moving party must show, on a balance of probabilities, that the proceeding arises from their expression and that the expression relates to a matter of public interest, a broad, non-qualitative threshold that does not ask whether the expression is desirable or deleterious (para. 28). Second, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show "grounds to believe," a standard more than mere suspicion but less than a balance of probabilities, that the proceeding has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence with a real prospect of success. Third, and described as "the fundamental crux of the analysis" (para. 61), the plaintiff must show the harm likely suffered and the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweigh, not merely balance, the public interest in protecting the expression. The Court illustrated this as requiring "at least 51/49," not a 50/50 tie (para. 66). Non-exhaustive contextual factors include the importance of the expression, the litigation history between the parties, any chilling effect, disproportion between the resources devoted to the litigation and the harm alleged, the moving party's history of activism, and the potential for the litigation to provoke hostility against a vulnerable group. On the facts, Pointes Protection's motion succeeded on two independent grounds: the underlying breach of contract claim lacked substantial merit, and the public interest weighing favoured dismissal.

British Columbia: Protection of Public Participation Act

British Columbia's Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c. 3, received royal assent March 25, 2019 and applies to proceedings commenced on or after May 15, 2018. Its structure, a threshold test for expression on a matter of public interest at section 4(1), followed by merits-based and public interest weighing hurdles for the plaintiff at section 4(2), mirrors Ontario's section 137.1(3) and (4). British Columbia is not new to this area of law. An earlier Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2001, took effect and was then repealed roughly four months later, with the current BC Laws site recording that it was "repealed by the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, SBC 2001, c.32, s.28, effective August 16, 2001." British Columbia went eighteen years, from 2001 to 2019, without anti-SLAPP legislation before the current Act took effect.

Quebec: Inside the Code of Civil Procedure

Quebec did not enact a standalone anti-SLAPP statute. Its protection is built into articles 51 to 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c. C-25.01, the province's ordinary civil procedure code, consistent with Quebec's general civil law approach of folding a protection into its unified procedural rules rather than creating a defamation-specific statute. Article 51 is the operative hook: a court may declare a pleading abusive at any time, including, in the Code's own language, "if it limits another's freedom of expression in the context of public debate." Article 52 shifts the burden once abuse is summarily shown and gives priority hearing to public-debate-related motions. Article 53 lets the court dismiss, strike or annul the pleading. Article 54 provides cost and damages remedies, including punitive damages. Article 55 can require a quarrelsome party to obtain prior court authorization before bringing further proceedings, and article 56 extends personal liability to the directors or officers of a legal person found to have brought an abusive proceeding.

Manitoba: The Public Interest Expression Defence Act, a New Fourth Province

Manitoba's Public Interest Expression Defence Act, C.C.S.M. c. P218, is in force since November 6, 2025, confirmed directly from the province's own consolidated statutes site. This is the headline change for readers tracking anti-SLAPP coverage across Canada: as of this article, Manitoba is the fourth province with dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation, alongside Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. This article confirms the Act's title and in-force date directly from Manitoba's own statute site, but does not detail its internal test section by section, since that was not independently verified for this article. A reader in Manitoba should confirm the Act's specific procedural test before relying on it.

The Provinces Without Anti-SLAPP Legislation

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador are consistently listed as lacking dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation across independent sources, including journalism and free expression organizations, law firm client alerts and the Supreme Court of Canada's own 2020 enumeration in Pointes Protection. A Saskatchewan private member's bill, the Public Participation Act, was introduced by MLA Nicole Sarauer in December 2021 and, per those same secondary sources, was not enacted. A claim that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each introduced but never passed their own anti-SLAPP bills, in 2003 and 1997 respectively, rests on a single secondary source and has not been independently confirmed against a primary legislative record. This article's negative finding for these six provinces is well corroborated but was not confirmed by directly browsing each province's own legislation index one by one.

Watch out: Ontario's 60-day hearing requirement and presumptive full-indemnity costs mean an anti-SLAPP motion, if it applies, moves fast and carries real cost consequences for the losing side. A defendant who thinks their situation might qualify should not wait to raise it.

This article provides general legal information about anti-SLAPP legislation in Canada, current as of August 14, 2026. The absence of anti-SLAPP legislation in six provinces is well corroborated but was not confirmed by directly browsing each province's own legislation index. It does not assess whether any motion would succeed on a particular set of facts. For advice about a specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in the relevant province.

Related reading: the Canada defamation law hub, defamation defences in Canada, online defamation in Canada, and what to do if you've been defamed or accused.