I received the judge’s 37-page ruling on my desk last Thursday. Reading through Justice Tremblay’s decision denying the government’s attempt to shield its anti-disinformation program records felt like a small victory for transparency in an increasingly opaque information landscape.
“When democratic institutions claim to fight disinformation while refusing to disclose their methods, we face a troubling paradox,” Justice Tremblay wrote in what might become a landmark ruling on government accountability in the digital age.
This decision lands at a critical moment. Last week, I attended the inaugural Canadian Journalists Disinformation Awards in Ottawa, where reporters, fact-checkers and digital researchers gathered to recognize those working to safeguard our information ecosystem. The contrast between celebration and concern was palpable.
“We’re honoring excellence while watching our information environment deteriorate,” said Maya Rodriguez, director of the Digital Citizenship Initiative and head of the awards committee. “The threats are evolving faster than our defenses.”
The awards recognized six journalists and two news organizations for exceptional work exposing coordinated disinformation campaigns affecting Canadian democratic processes. Award recipient Thomas Chen spent 11 months tracking how false claims about election procedures in three provinces spread from fringe platforms to mainstream discourse.
“By the time a falsehood reaches Facebook or the evening news, it’s already too deeply rooted to fully extract,” Chen told me. “We need earlier detection systems and better cross-platform monitoring.”
His investigation uncovered evidence linking three seemingly disparate influence operations to the same network of automated accounts. The findings have since been cited in Parliamentary hearings on election security.
I spoke with Amara Singh, who received recognition for her investigation into algorithmic amplification of health misinformation during last year’s measles outbreak in British Columbia. Her team analyzed over 200,000 social media posts and identified patterns showing how engagement-driven recommendation systems consistently elevated misleading content above expert guidance.
“The platforms have improved somewhat, but their business models remain fundamentally at odds with information integrity,” Singh explained. “When a false claim generates more engagement than accurate information, the algorithms still reward the falsehood.”
Legal challenges have become an increasingly common tool for journalists covering disinformation. The Canadian Association of Journalists reports a 43% increase in freedom of information appeals related to government anti-disinformation programs over the past two years.
Michel Dubois, legal director at the Digital Rights Collective, says the trend reflects growing tension between security concerns and transparency needs. “Governments claim national security exemptions to withhold basic information about how they monitor and respond to disinformation,” Dubois explained. “But without oversight, we risk creating shadowy operations that ultimately undermine public trust.”
I reviewed documents obtained through multiple freedom of information requests that show federal agencies have established at least three separate units dedicated to monitoring “information threats” without clearly defined operational boundaries or public accountability mechanisms.
The Justice Tremblay ruling specifically addresses this concern, stating: “Democratic governments fighting disinformation must themselves remain transparent. Secret programs to combat manipulation create dangerous precedents that may outlast current threats.”
Dr. Elizabeth Warren, who leads the Citizen Lab’s disinformation research program at the University of Toronto, sees the awards as an important recognition of journalism’s front-line role. “Journalists are the immune system of our information environment,” she told the audience during her keynote address. “They’re often the first to detect and expose manipulation campaigns.”
Warren’s recent research demonstrates how disinformation tactics have evolved from crude fake news to more sophisticated approaches that blend truth with strategic distortion. Her team documented 17 instances where legitimate news stories were subtly altered before being redistributed through networks of inauthentic accounts.
“The most effective disinformation is wrapped around a kernel of truth,” Warren said. “This makes debunking infinitely more difficult and resource-intensive for journalists.”
The rising tide of legal challenges against reporters covering disinformation represents another concerning trend. According to data compiled by the Freedom of Expression Legal Clinic, journalists reporting on disinformation faced twice as many defamation threats in 2024 compare
