So, I did a little looking (couldn't help myself) and this is what I think is the case. Take all of this with a grain of salt, given that Canada is not ... my wheelhouse.
1. Defamation claims tend to involve a lot of forum shopping. For a libel claim in the modern age, you can often pick and choose various jurisdictions (states) within the US to bring a claim, trying to find the one most favorable to you. However, given that the Defendant resides in Canada, I believe that I was incorrect in calling this forum shopping per se. It is always reasonable to bring a lawsuit in the jurisdiction where the Defendant resides and/or the material was written (if not "published" - internet!).
Big problem is Defamation is a provincial jurisdiction. So it depends heavily on the province.
2. My understanding is that Canada has a modified version of "loser pays." In essence, at the end of litigation, the court makes a determination as to which party should pay, and how much, based upon various factors (and this can even include the winner paying in some circumstances, depending, again, on factors). I don't know how this works in Canada in practice, but these types of jurisdictions have been known to favor the wealthier party in some cases due to the in terrorem effect; in essence, even if you know you have a very strong case, the idea that you might have to pay the other side's fees can force you to settle. Again, perhaps someone with more familiarity would know this.
Correct. From McMillan (a big law firm in Toronto): "n other words, the prevailing party at trial or on appeal can expect the opposing party to be ordered to pay anywhere from fifty to ninety percent of the prevailing party's actual
legal costs.
Attorneys'
fees can also be
awarded to the prevailing party on a motion."
So, if you lose you can be in for a world of financial pain.
3. Despite (1) and (2), and although truth can be a defense in Canada, Canada is widely considered the most plaintiff-friendly of all the common-law countries to bring a defamation lawsuit, for such reasons as not having to prove damages for libel (all libel is libel per se) to shifting the burden to the defendant (which, to be honest, I was somewhat surprised by).
It has a few interesting effects. A reverse scorched Earth tactic can come up. Say Lowkey13 sues me because I insist he loves gnome paladins dual wielding rapiers, he told me last week doncha know. But along the way in the court case I dump all of the actual true, horrible things about him and its all on a public record he's going to have a hard time suppressing. It tends to work better for big media entities that can and do collect all kinds of interesting facts. Note though it can backfire spectacularly if they lose.
Anyway, once a case commences the only defenses are (list courtesy of
CJFE):
1. You can claim that the statement was true;
a true statement cannot be defamatory.
2. You can claim
“absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.
3. You can claim
“qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.
4. You can claim
“fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.
5. You can claim
“responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible
