IAPA Midyear Meeting 2026, April 23 - 24.
During this period, freedoms of expression and press have come under threat due to harassment and campaigns aiming to delegitimize journalists; the introduction or enactment of laws and regulations that discourage reporting; and a growing need for legal support systems to manage rising litigation and regulatory challenges.
Canada has a strong constitutional framework that protects freedom of expression and of the press. Although these rights are formally safeguarded, recent reports from watchdog organizations indicate that journalists often encounter notable discrepancies between the legal guarantees and their actual working conditions.
The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) has highlighted issues related to the protection of sources, access to information, and legal threats related to certain reporting cases.
For its part, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and other civil liberties groups have warned that certain recent federal and municipal measures could pose risks to free expression, including those that indirectly affect journalists’ ability to report and citizens’ ability to communicate with them.
During this period, reports documented situations of intimidation, stigmatization of journalists, and, more specifically, coordinated harassment over coverage of the situation in Palestine.
On February 3, J-Source and the Canadian Press Freedom Project (CPFP) published the report “Honest Reporting: Canada’s Targeted Harassment Machine,” which documented organized harassment campaigns against journalists covering the situation in Palestine. The journalists interviewed described coordinated campaigns via email and social media, characterized by high volumes of hostile messages directed at reporters and producers following alerts issued by HonestReporting, frequently accusing them of bias or antisemitism.
Additionally, several journalists were publicly singled out as unprofessional, biased, or propagandists, with the explicit aim of pressuring newsrooms to modify or cancel coverage. According to the report, the resulting chilling effect led some editors to preemptively reject proposals related to Palestine to avoid organized backlash, which was denounced as a form of indirect censorship.
In December, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) published the report “Death by a thousand clicks: The rise of internet censorship and control in Canada”, arguing that a combination of federal legislation (including previous online news and online harms initiatives), platform regulation, and content moderation practices is producing a system of “soft censorship” affecting both journalists and independent media.
Among the main concerns highlighted are the de-prioritization of controversial content by algorithms, which can reduce the reach of investigative or critical journalism; regulatory pressure on platforms to remove or downrank content deemed harmful or misleading, with limited transparency and few appeal mechanisms; and the chilling effects on small media outlets and independent journalists, who may resort to self-censorship to avoid demonetization, content removal, or regulatory complaints.
Additionally, the CCF characterized federal Bill C-9 (reforming the judicial discipline process known as the Combatting Hate Act) as “an urgent threat to free expression in Canada,” arguing that its broad standards and procedures could chill criticism of judges and courts.
From the standpoint of press freedom, there is worry that critical or controversial reporting on the judiciary could be seen as damaging public confidence in the justice system. Additionally, vague definitions of what counts as “misconduct” or “improper” speech might lead editors to avoid taking risks when reporting on courts and judges.
Bill C-9 does not target the media directly, but civil society groups caution that it might still reduce opportunities for in-depth reporting and discussion about the judicial system.
The CCF highlighted this year several municipal initiatives and “offensive speech” tools as threats to free expression.
The Winnipeg protest “bubble zone” bylaw (shelved February 2026) would have restricted protests near certain facilities, indirectly affecting coverage. Following public criticism, including from the CCF, the city “shelved” the proposal.
In February, the CCF wrote to Durham Region officials questioning a new tool for reporting “offensive” speech, warning that it could encourage complaints about lawful expression and chill public debate. These measures primarily target public expression rather than journalism per se, but they shape the environment in which reporters gather information and sources speak.
On December 18, the CAJ, the University of King’s College, and the Canadian Media Lawyers Association launched Lawyers for Reporters Canada, a pro bono legal support initiative for newsrooms and journalists. The project responds to increasing legal threats, including defamation suits and subpoenas that can be used to pressure journalists or unmask confidential sources; resource gaps for smaller outlets and freelancers, who often lack in-house counsel and are especially vulnerable to strategic lawsuits or aggressive legal tactics; and pre-publication legal vetting needs, as complex regulatory and defamation environments make investigative reporting riskier.
Other key developments:
On December 15, the JCCF released a detailed critique of what it calls Canada’s expanding “internet censorship and control,” focusing on platform regulation and its impact on free expression, including journalism and independent media.
On February 24, the CCF appeared as an intervener in litigation over federal impact assessment legislation, arguing in part for robust protection of Charter freedoms, including freedom of expression, in regulatory frameworks.
