Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 AUGUST 2010

Historic Defamation Decision Recognizes New Defence: Responsible Communication on Matters of Public Interest

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

In a dramatic and historic shift from the principles laid out by the Supreme Court of "Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto", the same court determined in "Grant v. Torstar Corp." that Canadian law needs a new rule that "gives greater scope to freedom of expression while offering adequate protection of reputation."

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In a dramatic and historic shift from the principles laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, the same court determined in Grant v. Torstar Corp. that Canadian law needs a new rule that "gives greater scope to freedom of expression while offering adequate protection of reputation." The parameters of a new defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" were set out and justified on the basis that traditional defamation law "does not give adequate weight to the constitutional value of free expression." The following brief analysis will elucidate the shift in principles of the Supreme Court and outline the broad tenets of the new defence. The facts will not be commented on.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from