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.