Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto

Hill, a Crown attorney, was defamed by the Church of Scientology in a press conference. The SCC declined to import the US New York Times v Sullivan "actual malice" standard. Charter values may inform but do not directly apply to private litigation; the common law of defamation strikes a fair balance.

Scientology lawyers held a press conference falsely alleging Hill, a Crown attorney, had misled a court. After judicial correction, they did not retract. Hill sued for defamation and won the largest award then in Canadian history.

(1) Should Sullivan-style actual malice be imported? (2) How do Charter values affect common-law defamation?

No to (1). Charter values inform the common law but do not require restructuring; common-law defamation is consistent with the Charter.

Charter values inform the development of the common law in disputes between private parties, but the Charter does not apply directly. The common law of defamation balances reputation and free expression appropriately and does not require transplant of US First-Amendment doctrine.

Cory J held that Canadian society places a higher value on reputation, especially that of public officials, than US doctrine. The Sullivan rule arose from a specific US constitutional and historical context. Canadian defamation law's defences (qualified privilege, fair comment, justification) provide adequate protection for free expression.

Defines how Charter values percolate into private-law disputes. WIC Radio (2008), Grant v Torstar (2009 — responsible communication), and Bent (2017) extend the framework, especially for media defendants.

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC).

Lamer CJ, La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Sopinka J, Gonthier J, Cory J, McLachlin J, Iacobucci J, Major J