Absolute privilege is immunity from lawsuits for defamation in certain contexts (additional information at: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AbsolutePrivilege.aspx).

These contexts include court proceedings (including what is said and written by witnesses, prosecutors, and judges), public policy, and a few other areas.

However, lawyers also have a responsibility to not knowingly assist or encourage any dishonesty (https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/complete-rules-of-professional-conduct 3.2-7 for Ontario Law Society).

So when I see falsehoods in a filing to the court that a lawyer makes on behalf of a client, falsehoods that satisfy all of these characteristics:

• The falsehood is not simply a clerical error (such as mistypings, etc)
• The falsehood has evidence presented that contradicts the falsehood
• The falsehood remains in subsequent filings

I would conclude either that the lawyer is representing a dishonest client which reflects poorly on the lawyer, or the lawyer is being dishonest to sway the decisions of the court on behalf of their client which reflects poorly on the lawyer.

In both cases, while I agree it may not warrant a lawsuit for defamation, the lawyer ought to earn a rebuke for this behaviour. Repeated incidents reflects poorly on the legal profession. The relevant Law Society ought to hold their lawyers to a higher standard.