The difference between and the in terms of libel is something every Canadians should know.

In , defendants are considered innocent until proven otherwise.

In , the defendant is basically lying until proven otherwise.

Now this is *super* important.

<thread>

2/ You're thinking, if you're going to say something, it should be true. Correct.

However, you need to be able to prove it in court *legally.*

Money disappeared, and the person in charge of it has the exact amount in their pocket? May not be enough evidence.

3/ This slants what issues get covered, and challenged in Canada. A media company, and some journalists, will not touch certain people and companies because they have deep pockets.

Yes, you will be reimbursed if you win. You still need to front the funds for defense.

4/ Now think of this way. Are you going to publish an article with a value of $500-$5000, which may mean you need $2 million in legal funds to defend?

Probably not. You're a journalist that makes $40k-100k. You don't have the risk tolerance, so you avoid it.

5/ This makes Canada a great place to be a reckless business person with deep pockets.

Even if it's pretty obvious what you're doing that's horrible, the media is unlikely to take that risk. Even journalists at large outlets have told me they need to avoid certain people.

Fin.

TL;DR Canada's libel laws are written to benefit the wealthiest, while US laws were written because rich people still needed to attack wealthier people.

Also, an important note. Even if you win, you need to collect the money. Good luck with that.

Last I heard, @BenRabidoux still hadn't collected the small fortune he spent defending his statements. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/how-a-real-estate-developers-efforts-to-silence-a-critic-failed/

Bonus fun fact: Trump originally wanted to make US libel laws more like Canada, so he could sue journalists that critiqued him.

When Donald Trump wants your laws to protect him from scandals, you know your laws are screwed up.