Facebook Linkedin Instagram
Nihang Law Professional Corporation Logo
CILA-Logo-Bi-White-pr
law-society-ontario-1
cba-logo.jpeg-1-1
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Instagram
Can You Sue for a Bad Google Review in Ontario?

29th July 2026BY Qasim Nihang

Can You Sue for a Bad Google Review in Ontario?

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. Consult a licensed lawyer before making any legal decisions.

Quick Answer

The short answer

  1. In Ontario, a false online review may be defamatory if it states something as a fact, that fact is untrue, and the statement tends to lower the reputation of the business or person it names.
  2. A harsh opinion about service or quality is typically not defamation, however unfair it feels.
  3. The realistic defendant is the person who wrote the review, not the platform that hosts it, because a platform is generally not treated as the publisher of a user's post.
  4. In the Superior Court of Justice, a reviewer may bring an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which can end the claim early and expose the business that sued to costs on a full indemnity basis.
  5. Anti-SLAPP motions cannot be brought in Small Claims Court, where claims up to $50,000 may be filed, which makes the choice of court a real strategic question rather than a formality.

When A Review Crosses The Line From Unfair To False

You built the business and answered the phone on weekends. Then a review appears saying you took a deposit and never came back, and it is not true.

The urge to sue is reasonable, and Ontario law offers a path. It also gives the other side strong tools, and knowing about them before you act tends to save money and stress.

This article is for two readers: an Ontario business owner facing a review they believe is false, and a customer who left one and has received a letter from a lawyer. Both need much the same map of how defamation claims in Ontario work.

$50,000Small Claims Court monetary limit since October 1, 2025
$5,000Minimum amount for an appeal as of right
60 daysDeadline for an anti-SLAPP motion to be heard once the notice is filed
s. 137.1The Courts of Justice Act provision behind anti-SLAPP motions

Pick Your Path Before You Read Further

Your next step depends on which side of the review you are on. A business owner typically needs to work out whether the statement is fact or opinion, and what a claim may cost if it fails. A reviewer who received a demand letter needs to know it is not a court order.

If you are the business reviewed

  • Does the review state something as a fact, or does it express an opinion?
  • Can you prove the factual part false, with documents?
  • Could you absorb a costs order if a claim did not succeed?

If you are the reviewer who received the letter

  • Is what you wrote true, and can you show it?
  • Were you giving an honest opinion of your own experience?
  • Have you kept the letter, the review, and anything showing what happened?

What Makes An Online Review Defamatory In Ontario

In Ontario, a statement is defamatory when it is published to someone other than the person it concerns, it identifies that person or business, and it tends to lower their reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. Libel is a defamatory statement in a permanent form, such as writing. Slander is in the form of a spoken statement.

A Google review is libel rather than slander, because it is written. A business bringing a claim does not have to prove at the outset that the review is false. Falsity is presumed, and truth is a defence the reviewer may raise.

The line that decides most review disputes is fact against opinion. "The work was sloppy, and I would not go back" reads as opinion. "They took my deposit and never showed up" states a fact that is either true or not.

Read more about how Ontario defamation law works.

Nihang Law Professional Corporation
Fact or opinion — how the same complaint reads two ways
The distinction that decides most bad-review disputes in Ontario.
What the review saysOrdinarily read asWhy that matters
“The work was sloppy and I would not go back”OpinionFair comment may apply
“They took a deposit and never showed up”Statement of factProvably true or false
“Rude, unprofessional, overpriced”OpinionTypically not actionable on its own
“This business is running a scam”Allegation of factSerious imputation; truth is the live question
“I was never a customer but I heard…”RepetitionRepeating a defamatory statement may itself be publication
Opinion
Honest views about service or quality. Fair comment may protect these even when the wording stings.
Statement of fact
Something that can be checked against evidence. This is where a defamation claim may have somewhere to go.
Source: Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12 (ontario.ca/laws); WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 and Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 (CanLII). General information only, not legal advice.
Nihang Law Professional Corporation · Law Society of Ontario

The Defences That Defeat Most Bad Review Claims

Truth is a complete defence to defamation in Ontario. Fair comment may protect an honest opinion on a matter of public interest that is based on facts. Qualified privilege may protect statements made in certain relationships or duties. Responsible communication may protect reporting on a public interest matter done with reasonable care.

Those defences are the reason many bad-review claims do not succeed. A reviewer does not have to show a business was terrible. They typically have to show the substance of what they said was true, or that it was an honest opinion they actually held.

Fair comment, as the Supreme Court of Canada explained in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson and Grant v. Torstar Corp., protects opinion rather than invented fact, and that opinion still has to rest on facts.

This matters before anything is filed. Where most of a review is opinion and the factual parts are broadly accurate, a claim may face real difficulty even when the tone feels unfair.

The Anti-SLAPP Motion Most Business Owners Never See Coming

In the Superior Court of Justice, a person sued over something they said may move under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the claim dismissed at an early stage. These are anti-SLAPP motions. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

The motion works in two stages. The reviewer must first show the claim arises from their expression and that the expression relates to a matter of public interest. The burden then shifts to the business, which must show grounds to believe that the claim has substantial merit, that the reviewer has no valid defence, and that its harm outweighs the public interest in the expression.

Section 137.2(2) requires the motion to be heard within 60 days of filing. If it succeeds, section 137.1(7) makes full indemnity costs the starting point for the moving party, though the judge keeps discretion. At this stage, civil litigation in Ontario becomes far more involved.

Whether an ordinary consumer review counts as a matter of public interest is a live question. In Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a dismissal, holding that statements from a bitter private renovation dispute did not engage the public interest as section 137.1 contemplates.

That decision binds Ontario courts today. The Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal on May 15, 2026 and reserved judgment. Therefore, this area may change.

Nihang Law Professional Corporation
How an anti-SLAPP motion moves through the Superior Court
A defamation claim over a review can be stopped before any trial, and the burden shifts partway through.
Step one
A claim is issued in the Superior Court of Justice.
▼
Step two — the reviewer moves under s. 137.1
The reviewer must show the claim arises from their expression and that the expression relates to a matter of public interest.
The judge decides which way this goes
Branch A — not a matter of public interest
The motion does not succeed on this limb and the claim continues in the ordinary way.
Branch B — public interest established
The burden shifts to the business, which must show grounds to believe that the claim has substantial merit, that the reviewer has no valid defence, and that its harm outweighs the public interest in the expression.
▼
Outcome pathway
The claim continues.
Outcome pathway
The claim is dismissed, with costs on a full indemnity basis as the starting point under s. 137.1(7).
TimingSection 137.2(2) requires the motion to be heard no later than 60 days after the notice of motion is filed. Neither pathway above is more likely than the other; the outcome depends entirely on the facts.
Source: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 137.1–137.5 (ontario.ca/laws); 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 (CanLII). This diagram shows procedure only and does not indicate how any motion may be decided.
Nihang Law Professional Corporation · Law Society of Ontario

Small Claims Court Or Superior Court, And Why It Matters Here

Anti-SLAPP motions cannot be brought in Small Claims Court. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has held that Small Claims Court adjudicators do not have jurisdiction to decide a section 137.1 motion. Small Claims Court may hear money claims of up to $50,000.

That ceiling rose on October 1, 2025 under O. Reg. 42/25, which also raised the minimum for an appeal as of right to $5,000. Our guide to the $50,000 Small Claims Court limit details what else changed.

For a modest claim, this creates a genuine question of forum. Small Claims Court is designed for parties without lawyers and its costs exposure is ordinarily capped. It is also a money court, so it cannot order a post taken down.

This is a point to raise with a lawyer, not a reason to sue on a weak claim. The defences apply in either court.

Nihang Law Professional Corporation
Small Claims Court and Superior Court compared for a review dispute
The two courts differ in ways that matter specifically to a defamation claim.
FeatureSmall Claims CourtSuperior Court of Justice
Monetary ceiling$50,000 (O. Reg. 42/25, effective October 1, 2025)No ceiling
Anti-SLAPP motion availableNoYes, under s. 137.1
Minimum amount for an appeal as of right$5,000Not applicable in the same form
Costs exposure if the claim does not succeedOrdinarily capped by the Rules of the Small Claims CourtMay include full indemnity costs on a successful s. 137.1 motion
Typical procedural complexityDesigned for parties without lawyersPleadings, discovery and motions
Order to remove a postNot available — it is a money courtAvailable in principle
Why the difference mattersForum is a point to raise with a lawyer, not a reason to bring a weak claim. The defences to defamation apply in either court.
Source: O. Reg. 626/00, as amended by O. Reg. 42/25 (ontario.ca/laws); Superior Court of Justice; Bruyea v. Canada (Veterans Affairs), 2019 ONCA 599 and Laurentide Kitchens Inc. v. HomeStars Inc., 2022 ONCA 48 (CanLII).
Nihang Law Professional Corporation · Law Society of Ontario

Two Very Different Clocks

Ontario has two deadline regimes for defamation. The Libel and Slander Act sets a six-week written notice requirement and a three-month limitation period for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast. Most other defamation claims fall under the general two-year period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

Section 7 confines those short rules to newspapers printed and published in Ontario and to broadcasts from an Ontario station. Ontario courts have read "newspaper" to include a newspaper's online edition, and the notice requirement turns on the medium rather than who was sued.

A standalone Google review is ordinarily neither, so the general period usually applies. That boundary can be argued, and the clock typically starts when the statement comes to the affected person's knowledge rather than when it was posted.

Deadlines here are strict and depend entirely on the facts. Speak to a lawyer about your own situation rather than working it out from an article.

A Step-By-Step Roadmap Before Anyone Sues

Litigation is the last step, not the first. These six steps apply whichever side you are on.

  1. 1
    Preserve the evidenceScreenshot the post with its URL, date, and username first, because online content can disappear.
  2. 2
    Report it through the platformGoogle, Yelp, and similar services run reporting processes for reviews that break their policies, often faster than court.
  3. 3
    Get advice on which rules applyWhether the notice regime or the general period governs turns on the medium, which is not always obvious.
  4. 4
    Consider a retraction or takedown demandWhat the letter says can matter as much as sending it.
  5. 5
    Weigh forum and anti-SLAPP exposure with counsel, since the court chosen changes what the other side can do.
  6. 6
    Decide whether to issue a claimSometimes the answer is that it is not worth it.

Where the relationship still matters, resolving a dispute outside court may be worth considering.

Nihang Law Professional Corporation
Six steps before anyone issues a claim
Litigation is the last step, not the first. These apply whichever side of the review you are on.
1
Preserve the evidence
Screenshot the post with its URL, date and username before anything else.
2
Report it through the platform
Google, Yelp and similar services run reporting processes for reviews that break their policies.
3
Get advice on which rules apply
Whether the notice regime or the general period governs turns on the medium.
4
Consider a retraction or takedown demand
What the letter says can matter as much as sending it.
5
Weigh forum and anti-SLAPP exposure
The choice of court changes what the other side can do.
6
Decide whether to issue a claim
Sometimes the answer is that it is not worth it.
Order, not timingThese steps show sequence only. They do not represent days or weeks, and they are not a guide to any deadline that may apply to your own situation.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Suing someone in Small Claims Court; Limitations Act, 2002 (ontario.ca/laws).
Nihang Law Professional Corporation · Law Society of Ontario

Common Mistakes On Both Sides Of A Review Dispute

  • Suing over tone. The actionable part of a review is often one sentence of fact, which narrows a claim sharply.
  • Assuming a demand letter is a court order. A reviewer who receives one has time to get advice.
  • Suing the platform instead of the writer. A platform is generally not the publisher of a user's post.
  • Posting an angry public reply. A response making its own factual allegations may create a second dispute in reverse.
  • Waiting to see whether the review disappears. Time limits run whether anyone is watching or not.
  • Treating the costs risk as theoretical. An unsuccessful Superior Court claim may leave a business paying the other side's costs.

Questions Ontario Businesses And Reviewers Ask Most

Can I sue someone for leaving a fake review about my business?

Yes, a business may sue the person who wrote a review that states something false as a fact and harms its reputation. Before doing so, consider that the reviewer may bring an anti-SLAPP motion in the Superior Court, ending the claim early and carrying a costs order.

Is a bad review defamation if it is just someone's opinion?

Typically not. Defamation law targets false statements of fact rather than opinions. A reviewer who writes that service was slow or overpriced is usually expressing an opinion. One who writes that a business took money and did no work states something that can be proven true or false.

Can I be sued for writing a negative review in Ontario?

Yes, although being sued and losing are different things. Truth is a complete defence and fair comment may protect an honest opinion. A demand letter is not a court order. If you receive one, keep it, keep a copy of the review, and get advice.

Can I sue Google or Yelp for a defamatory review?

Generally, a platform is not treated as the publisher of a user's post, so the person who wrote the review is usually the realistic defendant. Platforms do run reporting processes, and asking one to remove a review that breaks its own policies is often faster.

How long do I have to sue for defamation in Ontario?

It depends on where the statement appeared. Libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast carries a six-week notice requirement and a three-month limitation period under the Libel and Slander Act. Other claims typically fall under the general two-year period, and deadlines are strict.

How much does it cost to sue over a bad review?

Cost depends mainly on the court. Small Claims Court is designed to be cheaper, and its costs awards are ordinarily capped. A Superior Court claim may involve pleadings, discovery and motions, and an unsuccessful claim may leave a party paying the other side's legal costs.

Do I need a lawyer, or can I handle this in Small Claims Court myself?

Small Claims Court is built for people without lawyers, and many claimants represent themselves. Defamation is technically difficult, so advice on whether a claim is viable is often worth getting even if you run it yourself. See our guide to representing yourself in Small Claims Court.

Where To Get Advice On A Review Dispute

A false review can do real damage, and Ontario law offers options on how to address it. Which route suits you depends on what the review says, which court fits the claim, and what the other side may do in response. Acting early tends to preserve more options.

Nihang Law helps businesses and individuals across Toronto, Scarborough and the wider GTA with defamation and reputation disputes. Our team, led by Qasim Ali, Principal Lawyer at Nihang Law, can review what was posted and talk through the realistic options. Speak with our team about your situation.

Talk to a defamation lawyer in Toronto or Scarborough

Nihang Law acts for businesses facing false reviews and for individuals who have received a demand letter over one. A short conversation may help you understand your options before a deadline matters.

Contact Nihang Law
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. Consult a licensed lawyer before making any legal decisions. Nihang Law Professional Corporation is regulated by the Law Society of Ontario.
Qasim Ali — Principal Lawyer at Nihang Law Professional Corporation

About the author

Qasim Ali

Principal Lawyer · Nihang Law Professional Corporation · Toronto & Scarborough, Ontario · Law Society of Ontario

Qasim Ali is the Principal Lawyer at Nihang Law Professional Corporation, serving clients across Toronto, Scarborough, and the broader Greater Toronto Area. He provides full-service legal representation across immigration, real estate, family law, criminal law, civil litigation, employment law, wills and estates, and business law.

Nihang Law is particularly recognized for its depth in immigration and real estate law, a combination that serves newcomers and growing families navigating both legal systems at the same time.

Sources & References

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Previous Post
Next Post