Tort
Defamation and Charter Values
Hill v Church of Scientology and the Canadian balance.
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) declined to import the US New York Times v Sullivan "actual malice" standard into Canadian defamation law. The common law balances reputation and free expression, and the Charter does not directly apply to private litigation — though Charter values inform the development of the common law.
Subsequent decisions extend protection for media and public-interest commentary: WIC Radio (2008) on fair comment, Grant v Torstar (2009) on responsible communication on matters of public interest.
Key principles
- Charter values inform common lawBut the Charter does not directly apply to private disputes.
- No transplant of SullivanCanadian defamation law balances rights differently from US doctrine.
- Fair comment, qualified privilege, justification, responsible communicationDefences shaped by common law, not the First Amendment.
Cases (12)
Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays
landmark2008 SCC 39
Supreme Court of Canada· 2008· Tort
Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke
landmark2007 SCC 7
Supreme Court of Canada· 2007· Tort
Childs v Desormeaux
landmark[2006] 1 SCR 643
Supreme Court of Canada· 2006· Tort
Cooper v. Hobart
landmark2001 SCC 79
Supreme Court of Canada· 2001· Tort
M.(K.) v. M.(H.)
landmark[1992] 3 SCR 6
Supreme Court of Canada· 1992· Tort
Snell v. Farrell
landmark[1990] 2 SCR 311
Supreme Court of Canada· 1990· Tort
Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd.
landmark[1978] 2 SCR 229
Supreme Court of Canada· 1978· Tort
1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)
2024 FC 829
Federal Court· 2024· Tort
3533158 Canada Inc. v. Canada (the Attorney General)
2024 FC 1090
Federal Court· 2024· Tort
Adams c. Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens
2024 CHRT 87
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal· 2024· Tort
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2024 FC 1978
Federal Court· 2024· Tort
Akkari v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
2024 FC 1811
Federal Court· 2024· Tort