CA · americas

Canada

OpenAccess open3 live proceedings

Open access. No ranking filter. A B.C. Supreme Court petition over a global takedown order is the live speech-adjacent file; C-63 is not law.

Access

Available

Can ordinary users load X?

Removal requests

Not broken out

Folded into All others · July–December 2024

Court & agency files

3 still live or unresolved

Court and agency docket

Named proceedings that were public as of 15 August 2026 — cases in court, regulator files that can go to court, and statutes that would create new takedown powers. This is not a live court feed. Each card shows the last public date we have.

Full docket

Live or unresolved

PendingCourtUpdated 13 November 2025

X Corp. petition of a B.C. Intimate Images Protection Act order

Supreme Court of British Columbia (from B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal)

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered X to take down a non-consensual intimate image and later imposed a $100,000 penalty after X geo-blocked the post in Canada instead of deleting it worldwide. X petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court in November 2025 to quash the global-takedown penalty. The Attorney General of B.C. joined to defend the statute. No later public disposition was found as of this compilation.

At stake

Whether a Canadian provincial order can force worldwide deletion, or whether geo-blocking inside Canada is enough. X argues a global order would let the most restrictive jurisdiction set the internet’s floor.

Opened November 2025

B.C. government statement / CBC reporting

PendingCourtUpdated 21 May 2026

Online Streaming Act (C-11) — Federal Court of Appeal challenges

Federal Court of Appeal; CRTC

C-11 brought online streaming under the Broadcasting Act. Industry groups (including MPA–Canada) challenged CRTC contribution orders. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed to hear the case and partially stayed payments. On 21 May 2026 the CRTC raised contribution levels again. This file is about broadcasting levies and discoverability, not a post-by-post X speech filter — included because C-11’s social-media reach was the live Canadian speech-regulation fight for years.

At stake

How far Ottawa can regulate online audio/video undertakings, including discoverability on social platforms. Not an X ranking-filter case.

Opened July 2024 (industry applications)

CRTC 2026-96 / public litigation reporting

MonitoringRegulatorUpdated 11 June 2026

OPC investigation of X Corp. and xAI (Grok image generation)

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court available next)

The Privacy Commissioner found X and xAI breached PIPEDA by launching Grok image generation without adequate safeguards against sexualized deepfakes. The office is monitoring remediation. If unsatisfied it can take the matter to the Federal Court — the current statute does not give the OPC its own fines or binding orders.

At stake

Privacy-law consequences for generative tools on X in Canada, and whether the file hardens into a Federal Court proceeding.

Opened January 2026Decided 11 June 2026 (findings)

Office of the Privacy Commissioner / IAPP

Closed or not in force

DecidedAgency orderUpdated Historic transparency example

Commissioner of Canada Elections — 2021 special-ballot post

Commissioner of Canada Elections (legal demand to X)

X reported a legal demand from the Commissioner of Canada Elections over a post about special ballots in the 2021 general election. X removed the post under its Civic Integrity policy. That is the named Canadian example in X’s own removal-request write-up — not a reported open court file today.

At stake

Election-administration speech taken down after a federal elections-law demand.

Outcome. Post removed under X Civic Integrity.

Opened 2021 election cycle (disclosed in an X transparency report)

X Transparency Center — removal requests (Canada example)

Died / not in forceLegislatureUpdated 30 March 2026

Bill C-63, Online Harms Act

44th Parliament (House of Commons)

Would have created a Digital Safety Commission with power to order platforms to make specified harmful content inaccessible in Canada, plus Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act hate-speech expansions. Reached second-reading debate on 23 September 2024. Died when Parliament prorogued in January 2025. A March 2026 academic forum treated successor legislation as likely, not enacted.

At stake

A standing federal takedown-and-audit regime for social platforms. It is not law. Nothing in C-63 currently binds X.

Outcome. Died on the Order Paper. Government has said the policy commitment remains.

Opened 26 February 2024Decided 6 January 2025 (died on the Order Paper)

Canadian Heritage / LEGISinfo C-63

Missing a named file for Canada?

Allowed and not allowed

What public sources currently show — not a live feed of every withheld post. Individual jurisdiction withholdings still only appear as a notice when opened from that country.

Legal demandVerified source

Case-by-case legal process — no ranking filter

X is fully available in Canada. There is no Canada entry in the open-source For You filters. Historic transparency reports list Canada among countries where X has used Country Withheld Content after a valid legal demand. The live fight is not a federal ranking statute — it is a B.C. court petition over whether an intimate-image order must delete a post worldwide.

Not allowed

A post can be withheld for Canadian viewers after a legally sufficient order (court, CRT, or elections commissioner). B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act requires deletion, not merely a Canada geo-block — that reading is being tested in the B.C. Supreme Court. Global X Rules still apply.

Still allowed

Ordinary political speech. No TSE-style candidate ranking filter. Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) died in January 2025 and does not bind X. Geo-blocking versus global deletion is the open legal question, not a national block.

Basis: Charter s. 2(b); Criminal Code; B.C. Intimate Images Protection Act; Canada Elections Act; PIPEDA

Compiled docket · August 2026

Same region

Brazil United States Mexico Argentina