Canada Considered Suing Citizens Over "False And Misleading" Social Media Posts

Authored by Cindy Harper via ReclaimTheNet.org,

The Canadian government drew up a plan to take individual citizens to court over what they post online. That plan sat inside a 35-page internal memo from the Department of Industry, most of it blacked out before the public could see it.

Blacklock's Reporter pried the document loose through an Access to Information request. Dated March 31 and titled "Misinformation And Disinformation Strategy," it belongs to the department run by Minister Melanie Joly, known as ISED. The memo weighs "legal action" against people who post what the government calls "false and misleading information" on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

What kind of legal action? The redactions hide that. What survives the black ink is the logic. "This strategy seeks to uphold the integrity of and public trust in government information," the memo says. The department is appointing itself guardian of its own reputation, with lawsuits as one available tool.

Here is who would decide. ISED itself would judge whether a post is "factually incorrect, misleading or out of context." The same department that dislikes a post gets to rule on whether the post is true. No court makes that call first and no independent reviewer checks the work. The government writes the definition of misinformation and then enforces it against the people it defines.

The department @ISED_CA itself would determine whether social media posts were “factually incorrect, misleading or out of context.” Any punitive measures against individuals would be “proportionate and subject to senior level approval.” https://t.co/lIFVBUVxvJ pic.twitter.com/6tRaRqNNRI

— Blacklock's Reporter (@mindingottawa) July 4, 2026

The memo describes any punishment as "proportionate and subject to senior level approval." That language reassures no one. Proportion gets measured by the same officials pushing the complaint, and senior approval means a manager signs off, not a judge.

Officials already watch. Managers "already monitor the department's official social media channels and media outlets on a daily basis for comments and recurring inaccuracies," the memo says. The strategy would push that surveillance from reaction toward "prevention and early detection," catching disfavored speech earlier in its life.

The plan has drawn sharp opposition reaction. Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis, in a post on X, asked who defines misinformation in the first place: "Will government become the arbiter of truth? That is a dangerous path for a free society." Conservative MP Roman Baber argued the direction of fear runs the wrong way, writing that government "should fear citizens at the free press and the ballot box," and that "the reverse, citizens fearing government, gives rise to authoritarianism."

The chilling effect writes itself. A citizen who knows a federal department is reading posts, grading them for accuracy, and holding a lawsuit in reserve thinks twice before typing. The threat does the work a courtroom never has to.

The government's own files admit the problem. Its research found Canadians feel capable of spotting fake news and do not want Ottawa "declaring what is true or not." The memo concedes that answering misinformation can amplify it, and that going after individuals risks "further backlash." The department understood the public would object and mapped the plan anyway.

Compare the tune from four years back. This same Liberal government declared that "the rights and freedoms that individuals have offline must also be protected online." That promise reads differently next to a memo about suing people for their posts. It also sits oddly against the government's own recent history: Canada repealed Section 181 of the Criminal Code, the "false news" offence, in 2019, after the Supreme Court found the provision violated freedom of expression.

The non-profit Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has since begun asking publicly whether any Canadians have already received notices from the federal government demanding they take down online posts.

Ottawa has not explained how the monitoring runs, how often lawsuits were floated, or what a post must do to land on the department's radar. The memo sets no threshold. It names no outside check. It leaves a federal department free to decide which citizens spoke falsely and what the price should be.

A government sure of its facts answers speech with more speech. This one drafted a plan to answer speech with lawyers.