FACTS: Moris Manning (an appellant) and representatives of the Church of Scientology (the other appellant) held a press conference on the courthouse steps. Manning, wearing his barrister's gown, read from and commented upon allegations in a notice of motion by Scientology intending to commence criminal contempt proceedings against a Crown attorney (the respondent Casey Hill). The motion alleged that the respondent had misled a judge and had breached orders sealing certain documents belonging to Scientology. At the contempt proceeding where the appellants were seeking a fine or imprisonment against the defendant, the allegations against the respondent were found to be untrue and without foundation. The crown attorney commenced an action for damages in libel against the appellants. Both appellants were found jointly liable for general damages of CDN$ 300,000 and Scientology alone was liable for aggravated damages of CDN$ 500,000 and punitive damages of CDN$ 800,000. The judgment was affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The major issues raised in this appeal are: Is the common law of defamation valid in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether the jury's award of damages can stand.
Table of contents |
2 Largest Libel Award in Canada 3 External link |
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS: The appellants contended that the common law of defamation in Canada failed to evolve with Canadian society. Too much emphasis in the common law had been placed on the need to protect the reputation of plaintiffs at the expense of freedom of expression. This, they argued, was an unwarranted restriction imposed in a manner that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society that could survive a limitations clause challenge. The appellants added that if the element of government action was insufficient to attract Charter scrutiny, the principles of the common law ought to be interpreted, even in a purely private law action, in a manner consistent with the Charter. This, they argued, could only be achieved by the adoption of the "actual malice" standard of liability found in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
THE COURT'S REASONS: In two opinions, (Majority opinion written by Cory J. per La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ., concurring in result: L'Heureux-Dubé J.) the court rejected those arguments while continuing to apply RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, that the Charter cannot rewrite the common law. Though the common law should be interpreted according to general Charter principles. This did not mean that the Court had to adopt the American jurisprudence "actual malice" standard of libel that has been seriously criticized in the U.S. and other countries.
In refusing to change Canadian law and bringing it more into line with "actual malice" standard applied in the US law (following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case) Cory J., writing for the majority, stated (at ¶ 138):
The Charter, interpreting the common law and freedom of expression
In L'Heureux-Dubé's concurring reasons her analysis of the Charter issue applying to common law is succinctly stated: (at ¶ 206):
RESULT: The Supreme Court upholds the Ontario Court of Appeal decision and the underlying jury award of general, aggrevated and punative damages.