Saskatchewan's New Defamation Act Is in Force: Take-Down Orders, a Single Publication Rule and 14 Days' Notice

Saskatchewan's New Defamation Act Is in Force: Take-Down Orders, a Single Publication Rule and 14 Days' Notice

Saskatchewan replaced its 1909-era defamation statute on 1 October 2026. The Defamation Act, SS 2026, c 15 repeals The Libel and Slander Act, abolishes the libel and slander distinction, and gives the Court of King's Bench express power to order defamatory material removed and de-indexed.

Information last verified on October 3, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This article describes the law of Saskatchewan only. Defamation in Canada is a matter of provincial law, and each province and territory has its own statute and its own body of common law. Nothing here states the law of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec or any other jurisdiction, and the rules described below do not apply outside Saskatchewan. For a province-by-province overview, see our guide to defamation law across Canada.

What Happened

On 1 October 2026, The Defamation Act, SS 2026, c 15 came into force in Saskatchewan. The Act was introduced as Bill 31 in the 30th Legislature, assented to on 14 May 2026, and brought into force by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Saskatchewan Gazette, Part I of 18 September 2026, under the heading "Acts in Force by Order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council", lists it against Bill 31 and Chapter 15 as "Assented to May 14, 2026, in force October 1, 2026". That entry names no excluded section, unlike neighbouring entries in the same table that itemise partial commencements.

Two companion instruments took effect the same day. The Defamation Consequential Amendments Act, 2026, SS 2026, c 16 comes into force, by its section 5, "on the day on which section 1 of The Defamation Act comes into force", and swaps the phrase "libel, slander" for "defamation" in The Jury Act, 1998, The Legislative Assembly Act, 2007 and The Small Claims Act, 2016. The Defamation Regulations, SR 62/2026, made by OC 391/2026 dated 10 September 2026 and filed the same day, carry the same commencement rule and supply the prescribed notice form.

What the new Act displaces is old. The Libel and Slander Act, RSS 1978, c L-14 was a consolidation of a statute that appears in the Saskatchewan revised statutes as far back as 1909, and it showed its age: its operative definitions were "newspaper" and "proprietor", and seven of its sections ran a registry of newspaper proprietors' annual returns to the Registrar of Corporations.

What the New Act Actually Says

The Act is short. It runs to 22 sections across eight printed pages, and the text below is taken from the King's Printer chapter, Chapter 15 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2026.

Definitions that do the work (section 2)

Section 2 is where the modernisation mostly happens. It provides that "defamation" includes libel and slander, that "publication" includes words published in any electronic medium, and that "words" includes "pictures, visual images, gestures or other methods of signifying meaning". "Court", except in section 13, means the Court of King's Bench. The old Act's definitions of "newspaper" and "proprietor" have no counterpart.

Notice of action (section 3)

Section 3(1) provides that "[a] person claiming that a publication is defamatory shall give 14 days' notice in writing to the publisher of the person's intention to bring an action". By section 3(2) the notice must include a description of the allegedly defamatory words complained of and be in the prescribed form, and by section 3(3) it must be served in the prescribed manner.

The consequence of skipping it is set out in section 3(4): "The failure to comply with the notice requirement must be taken into account when damages and costs are assessed by the court." The section does not say that a non-compliant action cannot be brought.

Section 3(5) deals with the timing squeeze the notice period creates: if the limitation period under section 5 of The Limitations Act expires during the notice period and before the action can be commenced, "the limitation period is extended for 15 days".

The prescribed form is Form A in the Appendix to The Defamation Regulations, SR 62/2026. It names the publisher, sets out the defamatory words and the date of publication, states that the notice "is provided to give you the opportunity to take steps to resolve the matter", and ends with a contact information and address for service block completed either by the complainant's lawyer or by a self-represented complainant. Regulation 3(2) permits service by personal service, registered mail, fax, or "email to a publicly available email address for the publisher or internet intermediary". Registered mail is deemed received on the fifth day after mailing, and fax or email on the date of transmission, in each case subject to proof of non-receipt.

Presumption of damage (section 4)

Section 4 reads in full: "An action lies for defamation and in a defamation action, if defamation is proved, damage shall be presumed." This clause was not in the bill as introduced. It was added by amendment at the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice, which is why the printed chapter carries the renumbering artifact described below.

Single publication rule (section 8)

Section 8 is new to Saskatchewan. It defines "first publication" as the first time a person publishes words to the public, and "subsequent publication" as the second and all subsequent times that same person publishes, "whether or not to the public", the words from the first publication or words substantially the same.

The operative provision is section 8(3): "For the purposes of section 5 of The Limitations Act, a defamation action with respect to a subsequent publication is to be treated as having been discovered on the date on which the first publication was discovered."

The rule has a limit. Section 8(4) disapplies it where the manner of the subsequent publication "is materially different from the manner of the first publication", and section 8(5) says the matters a court may have regard to in deciding that include "the level of prominence that the words are given" and "the extent of the subsequent publication". Note the scope: section 8 is keyed to republication by the same person, not to republication by a stranger.

Remedies, including de-indexing (section 12)

Section 12 is the provision that drew the headlines. Section 12(1) defines "internet intermediary" by reference to another statute: it "means an internet intermediary as defined in The Protection From Human Trafficking Act". That Act, SS 2021, c 23, defines the term in its section 2 as "a person or organization that hosts or indexes third party content through an online platform", which is wide enough to reach both hosting platforms and search engines.

Section 12(2) then sets out what the court may do in a defamation action. Both take-down powers sit under section 12(2)(a), which opens "with respect to all or any publications made by the defendant", so each is tied to the defendant's own publications rather than to matching material at large. Against the defendant, section 12(2)(a)(i) allows the court to order the defendant "to make every reasonable effort to make the publication unavailable to others", including by destroying copies in the defendant's possession or control, "having the publication removed from any platform operated by an internet intermediary", and "having the publication de-indexed from any internet search engine".

The reach beyond the defendant is in section 12(2)(a)(ii), which allows the court to "order any internet intermediary or other person or organization to make every reasonable effort to remove or de-index all publications that include the defamatory words". Read with the clause (a) chapeau, that power is directed at the defendant's publications, but the person ordered to act need not be a party to the action. The remaining clauses preserve the familiar remedies: damages including general and special damages, an injunction on any terms the court considers appropriate, and any other order the court considers just and reasonable.

Privilege (sections 13 to 15)

Section 13 gives qualified privilege, defeasible by proof of malice, to fair and accurate reports of public meetings and of open proceedings of Parliament, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan or another province, municipal councils, boards of education, the conseil scolaire, the provincial health authority and their committees, and to public information documents issued by government bodies. The privilege is lost under section 13(4) where the defendant was asked to publish a reasonable letter of explanation or contradiction and did not.

Section 14 gives absolute privilege to a fair and accurate report of proceedings publicly heard before a court or administrative tribunal, provided the report contains no comment, is published contemporaneously, and contains nothing seditious, blasphemous or indecent.

Section 15 is new: it creates a privilege for peer reviewed material in scientific or academic journals where an independent review of the merit of the words was carried out before publication, extends it to published assessments written by the reviewers, and withdraws it where the publication is shown to be made with malice.

Repeal, transition and commencement (sections 17, 18 and 22)

Section 17 states simply: "The Libel and Slander Act is repealed." Section 18 continues any proceeding commenced under the old Act but not completed, "as if it had been commenced pursuant to this Act". Section 18 reaches only proceedings that had already been commenced. The Act contains no provision addressing a cause of action that arose before 1 October 2026 where no proceeding had yet been started, and none preserving the old Act for such a claim. Section 22 provides that the Act comes into force by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

A numbering trap in the printed chapter

Because section 4 was added in committee, the table of contents printed at the front of Chapter 15 was not renumbered. The table lists "4 Pleadings", "11 Remedies", "16 RSS 1978 c L-14 repealed" and "21 Coming into force", while the enacted text of the chapter numbers those provisions 5, 12, 17 and 22. From item 4 onward, the printed table runs one behind the sections it indexes.

Two further artifacts follow from the same amendment. Section 10(1) refers to "a consolidated action pursuant to section 8", although consolidation orders are made under section 9; section 8 is the single publication rule. And the Gazette heading to The Defamation Regulations, SR 62/2026 cites the enabling provision as "Section 15" of the Act, although the regulation-making power in the enacted text is section 16. Anyone pinpointing a provision should work from the numbered sections in the body of the chapter rather than from the table of contents or the Gazette heading.

What Changed From the Libel and Slander Act

The libel and slander distinction is gone. The old Act was built around it, with separate headings for "Libel", "Newspaper Libel" and a general part. The new section 2 definition of "defamation" includes both, and the consequential amendments Act strikes "libel, slander" out of three other statutes and substitutes "defamation".

Notice went from narrow and fatal to universal and non-fatal. Section 15 of the old Act provided that "[n]o action shall lie for a libel contained in a newspaper unless the plaintiff has given to the defendant, in the case of a daily newspaper, five, and in the case of a weekly newspaper, fourteen, clear days' notice in writing". That duty attached only to newspaper libel and barred the action outright. New section 3 extends a flat 14-day notice to every defamation claim against any publisher, but makes non-compliance a factor in assessing damages and costs rather than a bar.

Technology-neutral language replaced the newspaper machinery. The old Act's special newspaper rules, including section 7 on apology in mitigation, section 8 limiting recovery to actual damages in defined good-faith circumstances, and the proprietor registry in sections 18 to 24 with its Schedule A and Schedule B returns, have no successor in the new Act. In their place are the electronic-medium definition in section 2 and the removal and de-indexing powers in section 12.

A single publication rule now exists. The old Act had none, which left the discovery analysis under The Limitations Act to run against each republication on its own terms. See our explainer on limitation periods for defamation claims in Canada for how the provinces differ on this point.

Several old provisions survive, re-dressed. The averment rule in old section 3 reappears as section 5, apology in mitigation as section 6, payment into court as section 7, the jury verdict powers in old section 5 as section 11, and consolidation of actions in old section 6 as sections 9 and 10.

The limitation period itself did not change. Neither statute sets one. Section 5 of The Limitations Act, SS 2004, c L-16.1 continues to provide that "no proceedings shall be commenced with respect to a claim after two years from the day on which the claim is discovered".

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The most striking thing about section 12 is where its language came from. Compare it with section 18(1)(c) of The Protection From Human Trafficking Act, SS 2021, c 23, which lets a court order a defendant to make visual recordings unavailable by destroying copies, "having the visual recordings removed from any platform operated by an internet intermediary" and "having the visual recordings de-indexed from any internet search engine", and then order "any internet intermediary or other person or organization" to remove or de-index. The defamation provision is the same structure with "the publication" substituted for "the visual recordings". Saskatchewan did not invent a bespoke online defamation remedy; it reused a drafting template it had already enacted for a different harm, and it imported the definition of "internet intermediary" by cross-reference rather than restating it.

That cross-reference is worth flagging on its own. The operative definition for an online defamation remedy now sits in a human trafficking statute, which means a future amendment to that definition would move the reach of section 12 without The Defamation Act being touched.

The second point concerns who section 12(2)(a)(ii) addresses. It is drafted to permit an order against "any internet intermediary or other person or organization", which on its face is not limited to parties to the action. The Act is silent on notice to a non-party, on the procedure for obtaining such an order, and on how an order would be enforced against an entity outside the province. Those questions are left to the Rules of Court and to the courts.

The third is the gap the legislature chose to leave. The Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan's March 2024 final report on reform of The Libel and Slander Act made 19 recommendations, the last of which was that Saskatchewan consider enacting anti-SLAPP legislation. Asked at committee whether all 19 had been followed, the ministry's answer was that anti-SLAPP was the one that was not. At committee on 13 April 2026, ministry official Darcy McGovern said the decision rested on the view that "while it's fair for the Law Reform Commission to raise the issues in general terms, the empirical basis for that in Saskatchewan was difficult to establish", and pointed to the existing Court of King's Bench power to strike out pleadings that are "scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, immaterial". Justice Minister Tim McLeod added that "the door isn't slammed on the conversation about anti-SLAPP legislation". Saskatchewan therefore modernised its defamation statute while declining the one reform aimed at the defence side of the balance, at a time when Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have anti-SLAPP regimes in place. Readers can compare the regimes in our overview of anti-SLAPP laws in Canada.

Finally, the notice requirement is now a step in every Saskatchewan defamation claim rather than a trap confined to newspaper cases. Because section 3(4) ties non-compliance to damages and costs rather than to the viability of the action, the practical weight of the requirement will be worked out case by case. One drafting mismatch is visible already: section 3(1) requires notice to "the publisher", while regulation 3(2)(d) contemplates email service on "the publisher or internet intermediary".

How This Affects You

If you believe you have been defamed in Saskatchewan. The Act now puts a notice step in front of the claim. Section 3 requires 14 days' written notice to the publisher, in Form A of SR 62/2026, describing the words complained of, served in one of the ways regulation 3(2) allows. The underlying two-year limitation period in section 5 of The Limitations Act has not changed, and section 3(5) extends it by only 15 days where it would otherwise expire during the notice period, so the notice requirement compresses rather than extends the timeline. If the material is online, section 8 means that a publisher's own reposting of substantially the same words will usually be dated back to the first publication for discovery purposes. Our guide to starting a defamation claim in Canada sets out the general steps.

If you publish online from or into Saskatchewan. The old Act's special protections for newspapers, including the actual-damages limit in its section 8, are repealed with nothing equivalent in their place. The privileges that remain are the ones in sections 13 to 15, and the common law defences of justification, fair comment and responsible communication are untouched by the Act because it does not codify them. See our discussion of defences to a defamation claim.

If you operate a platform or search service. Section 12(2)(a)(ii) creates an order power that can be directed at an internet intermediary, defined as a person or organization that hosts or indexes third party content through an online platform. The Act does not itself impose liability on intermediaries for third party content, and it does not create a notice-and-takedown obligation outside a court order. For the broader Canadian picture, see our article on online defamation in Canada.

This article is general information about Saskatchewan legislation, not legal advice. It does not create a solicitor-client relationship and it is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer licensed in Saskatchewan about your own situation. Statutes and regulations are amended, and a court may read a provision differently than this summary does. Consult the official text published by the Office of the King's Printer and speak to a Saskatchewan lawyer before acting.

Related articles

• Defamation law in Canada: a province-by-province guide
• Online defamation in Canada
• Defamation limitation periods across Canada
• Anti-SLAPP laws in Canada
• Suing for defamation in Canada
• Defences to a defamation claim in Canada
• Canadian law hub

Last updated: 2026-10-03. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-03.

Frequently Asked Questions

When did Saskatchewan’s new Defamation Act take effect?

1 October 2026. Section 22 of The Defamation Act, SS 2026, c 15 provides that the Act comes into force by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Saskatchewan Gazette, Part I of 18 September 2026, under the heading "Acts in Force by Order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council", lists the Act as assented to 14 May 2026 and in force 1 October 2026.

Do I have to send a notice before suing for defamation in Saskatchewan?

Section 3(1) says a person claiming that a publication is defamatory “shall give 14 days’ notice in writing to the publisher of the person’s intention to bring an action”. The notice must describe the allegedly defamatory words and be in the prescribed form, which is Form A of The Defamation Regulations, SR 62/2026. Section 3(4) provides that a failure to comply must be taken into account when damages and costs are assessed, so the statute treats non-compliance as a costs and damages consequence rather than as an automatic bar.

Can a Saskatchewan court order Google or a social platform to remove a post?

Section 12(2)(a)(ii) allows a court in a defamation action to “order any internet intermediary or other person or organization to make every reasonable effort to remove or de-index all publications that include the defamatory words”. Section 12(1) borrows the definition of “internet intermediary” from The Protection From Human Trafficking Act, where it means a person or organization that hosts or indexes third party content through an online platform. The statute sets out the power; how any particular order is framed is a matter for the court.

What is the limitation period for defamation in Saskatchewan now?

The Defamation Act does not contain its own limitation period. It points to section 5 of The Limitations Act, SS 2004, c L-16.1, which sets a basic period of two years from the day the claim is discovered. Two provisions of the new Act interact with it: section 8(3) treats a subsequent publication as discovered when the first publication was discovered, and section 3(5) extends the limitation period by 15 days where it would expire during the notice period.

Does the new Act give Saskatchewan anti-SLAPP protection?

No. Nothing in the 22 sections of the Act creates a mechanism for dismissing proceedings that limit public participation. At the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice on 13 April 2026, ministry official Darcy McGovern confirmed that the anti-SLAPP recommendation was the one Law Reform Commission recommendation not followed, saying “the empirical basis for that in Saskatchewan was difficult to establish” and pointing to the Court of King’s Bench rules on striking out pleadings.

Does the Act change the defences to a defamation claim?

Only in part. Sections 13, 14 and 15 deal with privilege: qualified privilege for fair and accurate reports of public meetings and listed proceedings, absolute privilege for contemporaneous court and tribunal reports containing no comment, and a new privilege for peer reviewed scientific or academic material. The Act does not codify justification, fair comment or responsible communication, which remain common law defences.

What happens to a defamation case that was already underway on 1 October 2026?

Section 18 is the transitional rule. A proceeding commenced under The Libel and Slander Act as it existed the day before the new Act came into force, and not completed before that date, “is continued and is to be dealt with pursuant to this Act as if it had been commenced pursuant to this Act”.