Bill 32 makes targeted, textual amendments to three Saskatchewan statutes to replace the phrases “libel, slander” or “libel” with the single term “defamation.” The changes appear in the Jury Act, 1998; The Legislative Assembly Act, 2007; and The Small Claims Act, 2016. The bill declares it will come into force on the same day that section 1 of The Defamation Act comes into force.
On its face this is a consequential, housekeeping measure: it aligns language in older statutes with the terminology adopted in the new Defamation Act. That alignment reduces inconsistent statutory references, but it also hands legal effect to whatever substantive definitions and rules appear in the new Defamation Act — a coordination that matters for courts, court administrators, and litigants who handle defamation matters in jury, legislative, and small-claims contexts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill substitutes the word “defamation” for occurrences of “libel” and “slander” (or “libel” alone) in specified provisions of three acts. It does not itself change remedies, limitation periods, or procedural rules; it changes statutory cross-references to use the terminology of the new Defamation Act.
Who It Affects
The amendments touch judges and court staff who draft jury instructions and process small-claims files, clerks and counsel in the Legislative Assembly, and litigants in civil defamation proceedings who rely on statutory wording for procedure or jurisdictional questions.
Why It Matters
Using a single, modernized term makes the statute book internally consistent with the new Defamation Act, but it also ensures that courts and administrators will interpret older provisions through the lens of the new Act’s definitions and rules — an important coordination step for practitioners handling defamation claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 32 is a short, targeted statute that performs textual substitutions in three existing Saskatchewan laws so they use the single term “defamation” instead of the older pairings or singular references “libel” and “slander.” That substitution occurs in several specific subsections of the Jury Act, a clause of The Legislative Assembly Act, 2007, and a subsection of The Small Claims Act, 2016. The bill itself contains no new procedural provisions, penalties, or substantive tort rules.
The act ties its own coming-into-force to the new Defamation Act by specifying it comes into force on the day section 1 of that Act becomes operative. Practically, that means these textual updates activate only once the new framework for defamation is in effect; until then, the older statutory language remains unchanged.
For administrators and counsel, the timing signal matters because statutory references in jury directions, legislative privilege questions, or small-claims forms will change only when the Defamation Act’s framework is live.Because the bill replaces terms rather than amends outcomes, its main legal effect is interpretive: courts and tribunals will read references to “defamation” in the amended statutes in light of the definitions, exceptions, and procedural rules established by the Defamation Act. That linkage is efficient from a drafting perspective but means that any substantive departures introduced in the Defamation Act — for example, a revised definition, differing standards for publication, or changed statutory defences — will have immediate knock-on effects where the amended statutes refer to defamation.Finally, the bill is bilingual and formally procedural; it does not add transitional provisions or require agencies to undertake specific implementation steps.
The practical work of updating forms, jury instructions, and legislative materials will fall to court administrators, the Legislative Assembly’s clerk, and registry staff once the amendments come into force.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends specific provisions of the Jury Act, 1998 — clause 18(1)(a), clause 18(3)(a), subsection 22(3), and subsection 23(3) — by replacing “libel, slander” or “libel” with “defamation.”, It amends clause 24(2)(a) of The Legislative Assembly Act, 2007, substituting “defamation” for the phrase “a libel.”, It amends subsection 3(2) of The Small Claims Act, 2016, replacing “libel, slander” with “defamation.”, The bill contains no standalone definitions, remedies, limitation-period changes, or transitional rules — it performs textual substitutions only.
The act comes into force on the same day section 1 of The Defamation Act comes into force, making these changes contingent on the new Act’s activation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 sets the short title as The Defamation Consequential Amendments Act, 2025. This is a formal provision that identifies the act for citation; it carries no substantive effect but signals the law’s purpose as strictly consequential to the new Defamation Act.
Replace libel/slander wording in jury provisions
This multi-subsection amendment replaces occurrences of “libel, slander” or “libel” in four enumerated places in the Jury Act with the word “defamation.” Practically, the change updates the statutory language that frames which offenses or civil causes may influence jury selection, qualification, or disqualification rules. It does not alter the procedural mechanics of jury trials, but it collapses older common-law labels into the single statutory term adopted by the new Defamation Act, thereby ensuring jury-related references align with the modernized statutory definition.
Swap 'a libel' for 'a defamation' in legislative privilege context
Section 3 modifies clause 24(2)(a) to replace the reference to “a libel” with “a defamation.” That clause sits in the statutory scheme governing legislative proceedings and privileges. The textual update clarifies that any statutory treatment of alleged libels arising in legislative contexts will now be framed by the Defamation Act’s single-term definition, which may affect how complaints or privileges are assessed against the standard consolidated in the new Act.
Standardize small-claims language to 'defamation'
Section 4 amends subsection 3(2) of the Small Claims Act by removing “libel, slander” and using “defamation” instead. That change affects the small-claims jurisdiction’s textual reach: statements formerly described under the older pair of terms will be subsumed under the Defamation Act terminology when that Act is in force. The amendment does not itself change small-claims monetary limits or procedures but may influence how small-claims adjudicators apply definitions and defences once the new Defamation Act governs the substantive tort.
Coming-into-force tied to The Defamation Act
Section 5 makes these consequential amendments operative on the day section 1 of The Defamation Act comes into force. The synchronization ensures that older statutes are not left with inconsistent terminology after the new Act begins to operate. It also means there is no standalone commencement date for this bill; the amendments are conditional on the Defamation Act’s commencement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Court administrators and registry staff — they get a single, consistent statutory term to use in forms and docketing, reducing internal inconsistency between older statutes and the new Defamation Act.
- Judges and tribunal chairs — having uniform statutory language reduces ambiguity when judges interpret cross-references to defamation in jury instructions, legislative privilege disputes, and small-claims adjudications.
- Litigants in defamation cases — the consolidated terminology can simplify pleadings and pleadings templates because parties and counsel can rely on the Defamation Act’s definitions rather than juggling historic libel/slander labels.
- Legislative counsel and the Legislative Assembly clerk — updated wording aligns Assembly rules and records with the province’s statutory scheme for defamation, reducing drafting friction in future legislative work.
Who Bears the Cost
- Court and tribunal offices — they must update templates, jury instruction materials, forms, database entries, and training materials to reflect the new terminology when the amendments come into force.
- Clerks and counsel for the Legislative Assembly — internal procedure manuals, privilege handling protocols, and records-keeping references will require revision to substitute “defamation.”
- Lawyers and legal educators — continuing professional development and practice resources will need updating to reflect the statutory language change and to highlight any interpretive shifts emanating from the Defamation Act.
- Small-claims registries and litigants who self-represent — small claims paperwork and guidance materials must be revised, which creates short-term administrative burden and potential confusion during the transition.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between statutory housekeeping (clean, uniform terminology) and substantive legal consequences: modernizing language promotes clarity and administrative ease, but it also funnels interpretation of older statutes through whatever substantive choices the new Defamation Act contains, risking unforeseen changes to procedure or rights without explicit transitional rules.
The bill’s simplicity is its strength and its risk. It does no substantive heavy lifting; it merely aligns language across statutes.
That makes it administratively tidy but places interpretive weight on the yet-to-be-applied Defamation Act. If the Defamation Act departs from traditional common-law distinctions — for example, by redefining publication, altering defences, or changing the treatment of online intermediaries — those substantive choices will immediately flow into the Jury Act, Legislative Assembly Act, and Small Claims Act by virtue of this textual substitution.
The consequential amendment does not include transitional language to manage such ripple effects, leaving courts and administrators to handle mismatches through interpretation or ad hoc practice changes.
Another implementation question is procedural: older provisions sometimes relied on the separate concepts of libel (written publication) and slander (oral) because those distinctions affected evidence, publication venue, or statute-of-limitations issues. Replacing both with “defamation” simplifies the phraseology but may obscure whether procedural differences tied to the old labels remain applicable.
The bill does not specify whether historical case law that differentiated libel and slander continues to govern procedure where appropriate, which could generate litigation over whether the substitution implicitly collapses procedural distinctions.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.