Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, (1995) 84 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 84 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

Hill v. Church of Scientology (1995), 84 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Morris Manning and Church of Scientology of Toronto (appellants) v. S. Casey Hill (respondent) and Attorney General for Ontario, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Writers' Union of Canada, PEN Canada, Canadian Association of Journalists, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, Book and Periodical Council, Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, Canadian Community Newspapers Association, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada, Canadian Book Publishers' Council and Canadian Magazine Publishers' Association (interveners)

(No. 24216)

Indexed As: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

July 20, 1995.

Summary:

Manning, accompanied by representatives of the Church of Scientology of Toronto conducted a press conference on the court house steps (Osgoode Hall). Man­ning, wear­ing his barrister's gown, read from and commented upon allegations contained in a notice of motion which the Church of Sci­entology intended to use to commence con­tempt proceedings against one Casey Hill. Hill was employed as counsel with the Crown Law Office, Criminal Division. The notice of motion alleged, inter alia, that Hill had breached court orders sealing certain documents belonging to the Church of Sci­entology and had misled a judge. The con­tempt charges were dismissed, with costs, on a motion for nonsuit at the conclusion of the Church of Scientology's case. Hill thereafter sued the Church of Scientology and Manning for damages for libel.

Following a trial by judge and jury, Man­ning and the Church of Sci­entology were found jointly liable for gen­eral dam­ages of $300,000 and the Church of Sci­entology alone liable for aggravated damages of $500,000 and puni­tive damages of $800,000. Manning and the Church of Sci­entology appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 71 O.A.C. 161, allowed the appeal only to the limited extent of varying the trial judgment respecting prejudgment interest and costs. In all other respects the appeal was dismissed. Manning and the Church of Scientology appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1843.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Defamation - The plaintiff, a Crown attorney, sued the defendants for damages for libel - The defendants alleged that the common law of defamation infringed the freedom of expression - The defendants submitted that the Charter applied because the plaintiff's action for damages constituted "government action" within the meaning of s. 32 of the Charter - Alternatively, they argued that pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, the com­mon law of defamation must be interpreted and modified in light of Charter values - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no government action in this defamation suit - Further, in its application to these parties, the common law of defa­mation complied with underlying Charter values and there was no need to change it - See paragraphs 62 to 142.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1843.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the approach to be followed when, in the context of private litigation with no gov­ernment action involved, a common law rule is alleged to be inconsistent with Charter values (Constitution Act, s. 52) - The court stated, inter alia, that when the common law is in conflict with Charter values, the traditional s. 1 framework for justification is not appropriate - Further, the division of onus which normally oper­ates in a Charter challenge to government action should not be applied in a private litigation Charter challenge to the common law - See paragraphs 91 to 99 and 207.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was clear from the court's earlier decision in "Dolphin Delivery", that the common law must be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Charter principles - "This obligation is simply a manifestation of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts to modify or extend the common law in order to comply with prevailing social conditions and values" - See paragraph 91.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "when determining how the Charter applies to the common law, it is important to distinguish between those cases in which the constitutionality of government action is challenged, and those in which there is no government action involved. It is im­portant not to import into private litigation the analysis which applies in cases involv­ing government action" - See paragraph 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a private litigant challenging the common law "... cannot allege that the common law violates a Charter right because, quite simply, Charter rights do not exist in the absence of state action. The most that the private litigant can do is argue that the common law is inconsistent with Charter values . It is very important to draw this distinction between Charter rights and Charter values. Care must be taken not to expand the application of the Charter beyond that established by s. 32(1) ... Therefore, in the context of civil litigation involving only private parties, the Charter will 'apply' to the common law only to the extent that the common law is found to be inconsistent with Charter values" - See paragraph 95.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "courts have traditionally been cautious regarding the extent to which they will amend the common law. Similarly, they must not go further than is necessary when taking Charter values into account. Far-reaching changes to the common law must be left to the legislature" - See paragraph 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the common law of defamation in light of the values underlying the Charter - The court discussed the values which must be bal­anced in a defamation action (i.e., the protection of a person's reputation and the equally important right of freedom of expression) - The court traced the history of the law of defamation, noting that a central theme through the ages has been that the reputation of the individual is of fundamental importance - The court noted the particular significance of reputation for a lawyer - See paragraphs 100 to 121.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - The plaintiff, a Crown attorney, sued the defendants for damages for libel - The defendants alleged that the common law of defamation infringed the freedom of expression and was subject to Charter scrutiny where the plaintiff's damages action was "government action" under s. 32 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the defendants failed to establish the "govern­ment action" requirement in s. 32 and therefore, the Charter could not be applied to directly scrutinize the common law of defamation in this case - Further, even if there was sufficient government action to bring this case within s. 32, the defendants failed to provide any evidentiary basis upon which to adjudicate their constitu­tional attack - See paragraphs 66 to 82.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1843.1 and fifth Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1 ].

Common Law - Topic 3221

Variation - Judicial variation - General - [See third and sixth Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1 , Civil Rights - Topic 1843.1 and Courts - Topic 103 ].

Courts - Topic 5

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - Authority and use of precedents - General - [See sixth Libel and Slander - Topic 4421 ].

Courts - Topic 103

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - American decisions - In New York Times v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court, held that the First Amend­ment required that there be constitutional limits on liability for defamatory com­munications where criticism of public officials was concerned - The American law required public officials to prove knowledge of falsehood or reckless disre­gard for the truth by the defendants before being entitled to recover damages for the publication of defamatory statements (i.e., proof of actual malice) - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to adopt the Sullivan principle in Canada - See para­graphs 122 to 142 and 208.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - Manning, accompanied by repre­sentatives of the Church of Sciento­logy (Scientology) con­ducted a press con­ference on the court house steps - Man­ning, wear­ing his bar­rister's gown, dis­cussed allega­tions con­tained in a notice of motion which Scien­tology intended to use to commence con­tempt proceedings against Hill, a Crown attorney - The notice alleged, inter alia, that Hill breached court orders and misled a judge - The contempt charges were dismissed - Hill sued Scien­tology and Manning, alleging libel - The jury held Manning and Scientology jointly liable for $300,000 general damages and Scientology alone liable for $500,000 aggravated dam­ages and $800,000 punitive damages - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to dis­turb the award of damages - See para­graphs 164 to 204.

Damages - Topic 901

Aggravation - General - [See Damages - Topic 1296 ].

Damages - Topic 907

Aggravation - Aggravated damages - Libel and slander - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the general principles applicable in awarding aggravated damages in a defamation suit - See paragraphs 188 to 191.

Damages - Topic 1296

Exemplary or punitive damages - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... there cannot be joint and several responsibility for either aggravated or punitive damages since they arise from the misconduct of the particular defendant against whom they are awarded" - See paragraph 195.

Damages - Topic 1308

Exemplary or punitive damages - Libel and slander - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the general principles applicable in awarding punitive damages in a defa­mation suit - See paragraphs 196 to 199.

Damages - Topic 2524

Torts affecting the person - Libel and slander - Considerations in assessing damages - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the principles applicable in awarding damages in a defamation suit - See paragraphs 157 to 203.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1

General - The Supreme Court of Canada traced the history of the law of defamation - See paragraphs 109 to 121.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3

General - Defamation v. Charter - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1843.1 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - Examples of defamatory words - Manning, accompanied by repre­sentatives of the Church of Sciento­logy (Scientology) con­ducted a press con­ference on the court house steps - Man­ning, wear­ing his bar­rister's gown, dis­cussed allega­tions con­tained in a notice of motion which Scien­tology intended to use to commence con­tempt proceedings against Hill, a Crown attorney - The notice alleged, inter alia, that Hill breached court orders, misled a judge and should be imprisoned - Scien­tology made efforts to ensure that the statements gained wide circulation - The contempt charges were dismissed - Hill sued Scientology and Manning, alleg­ing libel - A jury agreed with Hill's claim and assessed damages accordingly - The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to disturb the jury's find­ings - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal by Manning and Scientology.

Libel and Slander - Topic 644

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - Disparagement of repu­tation - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 642 and seventh Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 653

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - Statements respecting public officials - [See Courts - Topic 103 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 684

The statement - Defamatory statements - Libel - What constitutes - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 642 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2981

Defences - Qualified privilege - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the common law defence of qual­ified privilege - See paragraphs 143 to 148.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Where limits of privilege exceeded - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed gen­erally the common law defence of qual­ified privilege - The court noted that the privi­lege is not absolute and can be defeated if the dominant motive for pub­lishing the statement was actual or express malice or if the limits of the privilege were exceeded - See paragraphs 143 to 148.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Where limits of privilege exceeded - [See first Libel and Slander - Topic 2992 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2992

Defences - Qualified privilege - Judicial proceedings - Manning et al. conducted a press conference on the court house steps - Manning, wearing his barrister's gown, discussed a notice of motion which was to be filed to commence contempt proceed­ings against Hill, a Crown attorney - The notice alleged, inter alia, that Hill breached court orders and misled a judge - The contempt charges were dismissed - Hill thereafter sued Manning et al. for libel - Manning et al. claimed qualified privilege - The Supreme Court of Canada held that qualified privilege attached to this occa­sion, notwithstanding that the strict pro­cedural requirement of filing the docu­ments had not been fulfilled - However, Manning's conduct far exceeded the legit­imate purposes of the press conference and therefore, the qualified privilege which attached to his remarks was defeated - See paragraphs 143 to 156.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2992

Defences - Qualified privilege - Judicial proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that at common law where there were judicial proceedings before a properly constituted judicial tribunal exer­cising its jurisdiction in open court, then the publication without malice of a fair and accurate report of what took place before that tribunal was privileged - How­ever, the common law immunity was not extended to a report on pleadings or other documents which had not been filed with the court or referred to in open court - The court referred to the current scope of access to court documents under provincial legislation and the Charter, s. 2(b), and observed that "... in appropriate circum­stances, s. 2(b) may provide the means to gain access to court documents. It follows that the concept of qualified privilege should be modified accordingly" - See paragraphs 150 to 153.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4061

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair com­ment or qualified privilege - [See first Libel and Slander - Topic 2988.1 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4146

Malice - Evidence - Actual malice - [See Courts - Topic 103 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of appellate review of an award of damages by a jury in a defamation action - The court held that in the absence of legislation respecting the provision of guidelines for juries in reaching damage awards in defamation actions, the "standard which must be applied remains that the jury's assessment should not be varied unless it shocks the conscience of the court" - See paragraphs 157 to 163.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it has long been held that general damages in defamation cases are presumed from the very publica­tion of the false statement and are awarded at large. ... They are, as stated, peculiarly within the province of the jury. These are sound principles that should be followed" - See paragraph 164.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there should not be a cap placed on damages for defamation - The court explained why there should not be a cap on damages for defamation simi­lar to the cap imposed by the court on nonpecuniary general damages in the personal injury context - See paragraphs 167 to 173.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - A lawyer, Manning, and the Church of Scientology of Toronto were found jointly liable for general dam­ages arising from defama­tory state­ments - Manning argued that the gen­eral dam­ages should have been apportioned between himself and Scientology - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that both Man­ning and Scientology pub­lished the defam­atory state­ments - The court held that it would be wrong in law to have a jury attempt to apportion liability either for general or for special dam­ages between the joint tort­feasors - The court noted that this did not apply to ag­gravated damages, which are assessed on the basis of the particular malice of each joint tortfeasor - See para­graphs 174 to 176.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the factors which should be taken into account in assessing general damages in a defamation action - See paragraph 182.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4421

Damages - General damages - Measure of - General principles - In a defamation action against Manning (a lawyer), and the Church of Scientology of Toronto, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an award of $300,000 general dam­ages was justified - The court stated that "... each libel case is unique and that this particular case is in a 'class by itself'. The assessment of damages in a libel case flows from a particular conflu­ence of the following elements: the nature and cir­cumstances of the publication of the libel, the nature and position of the victim of the libel, the possible effects of the libel state­ment upon the life of the plaintiff, and the actions and motivations of the defend­ants. It follows that there is little to be gained from a detailed comparison of libel awards" - See paragraph 187.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Aggravated damages - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed when aggra­vated damages could be awarded in a defamation suit and the nature of such damages - The court stated that if aggra­vated damages are to be awarded, there must be a finding that the defendant was motivated by actual malice, which increased the injury to the plaintiff, either by spreading further afield the damage to the reputation of the plaintiff, or by in­creasing the mental distress and humili­ation of the plaintiff - The court set out how malice may be established - The court also referred to the factors that a jury may take into account in assessing aggra­vated damages - See paragraphs 188 to 191.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Aggravated damages - [See Damage Awards - Topic 632].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary damages - When available - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the general principles applicable in award­ing punitive damages in a defamation suit - The court emphasized that punitive damages should only be awarded where the combined award of general and aggra­vated damages would be insufficient to achieve the goal of punishment and deterrence - Unlike compensatory dam­ages, punitive damages are not at large, and consequently courts have a much greater scope and discretion on appeal - The appellate review should be based upon the court's estimation as to whether the punitive damages serve a rational purpose - See paragraphs 196 to 199.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary damages - [See Damage Awards - Topic 632 ].

Cases Noticed:

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254 (U.S.S.C.), not folld. [paras. 55, 122 et seq.].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 67].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 68].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 74].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 75].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270, refd to. [para. 80].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 84].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 84].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1983] 6 W.W.R. 640 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 88].

Sweeney v. Patterson (1942), 128 F.2d 457, cert. denied (1942), 317 U.S. 678, refd to. [para. 100].

Reference re Alberta Legislation, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 101].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 101].

Boucher v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 101].

Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 102].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Keegs­tra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 105].

Globe & Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 106].

Derrickson et al. v. Tomat et al. (1992), 9 B.C.A.C. 119; 19 W.A.C. 119; 88 D.L.R. (4th) 401 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Case De Libellis Famosis (1605), 5 Co. Rep. 125a; 77 E.R. 250, refd to. [para. 114].

King v. Lake (1667), Hard. 470; 145 E.R. 552, refd to. [para. 115].

Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966), 383 U.S. 75, refd to. [para. 117].

Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1982] 3 W.W.R. 97 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 121].

Barr v. Matteo (1959), 360 U.S. 564, refd to. [para. 126].

Dun & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders Inc. (1985), 472 U.S. 749, refd to. [para. 127].

Coughlin v. Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable Inc. (1986), 476 U.S. 1187 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 133].

Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., [1993] 1 All E.R. 1011; 150 N.R. 69 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 134].

Theophanous v. Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 124 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 135].

Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, refd to. [para. 138].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309, refd to. [para. 143].

McLoughlin v. Kutasy, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 311; 26 N.R. 242, refd to. [para. 143].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 144].

Taylor v. Despard, [1956] O.R. 963 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

Netupsky v. Craig, [1973] S.C.R. 55, refd to. [para. 145].

Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 275, refd to. [para. 147].

Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Dalrymple, [1965] S.C.R. 302, refd to. [para. 148].

Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R. 339, refd to. [paras. 151, 209].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122; 87 N.R. 163; 32 O.A.C. 259, refd to. [para. 153].

Walker and Walker Brothers Quarries Ltd. v. CFTO Ltd. et al. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 10; 59 O.R.(2d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 158].

Rantzen v. Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd., [1993] 4 All E.R. 975 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 162].

Ley v. Hamilton (1935), 153 L.T. 384 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 164].

Andrews v. Grand and Toy (Alberta) Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 167].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609; 3 C.C.L.T. 372, refd to. [para. 167].

Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 488; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 607; 3 C.C.L.T. 257, refd to. [para. 167].

Jill Fishing Ltd. v. Koranda Management Inc., [1993] B.C.J. No. 1861 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 169].

Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] 1 All E.R. 801 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 171].

Blackshaw v. Lord, [1984] 1 Q.B. 1; [1984] 2 All E.R. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Sutcliffe v. Pressdram Ltd., [1990] 1 All E.R. 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Carson v. Fairfax (John) & Sons Ltd. (1993), 113 A.L.R. 577 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 172].

Lawson v. Burns, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 362 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 176].

Kerr v. Conlogue (1992), 65 B.C.L.R.(2d) 70 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 190].

Egger v. Chelmsford, [1965] 1 Q.B. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 195].

R. v. Park (D.J.) (1995), 183 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 206].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(b) [para. 54 et seq.]; sect. 32 [para. 66].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 83].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 137(1) [para. 153].

Courts of Justice Act, An Act to Amend the, S.O. 1989, c. 67, sect. 4 [para. 161].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 504 [para. 74].

Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-49, generally [para. 74].

Ministry of the Attorney General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-17, generally [para. 74].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Australia, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 11, Unfair Publication: Defamation and Privacy (Kirby Commit­tee Report) (1979), p. 252 [para. 136].

Barrett, David A., Declaratory Judgments for Libel: A Better Alternative (1986), 74 Cal. L. Rev. 847, p. 855 [para. 129].

Barron, Jerome A., Access to the Press -- A New First Amendment Right (1966-67), 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641, pp. 1657, 1658 [para. 131].

Bezanson, Randall P., Libel Law and the Realities of Litigation: Setting the Rec­ord Straight (1985), 71 Iowa L. Rev. 226, pp. 227 [para. 128]; 228, 229 [para. 127].

Bible, generally [para. 109].

Bollinger, Lee C., The End of New York Times v. Sullivan: Reflections on Mas­son v. New Yorker Magazine, [1991] Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, p. 6 [para. 131].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994)(Loose­leaf Ed.), pp. 1-4 [para. 116]; 13-193, 13-194 [para. 146]; 14-35, 14-42 [para. 150].

Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, Response to A Consultation Draft of the General Limitations Act (September 1991), p. 3 [para. 138].

Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander (4th Ed. 1992), pp. 17 [para. 109]; 140, 141 [para. 150].

Christie, George C., Injury to Reputation and the Constitution: Confusion Amid Conflicting Approaches (1976), 75 Mich. L. Rev. 43, generally [para. 73]; pp. 63, 64 [para. 127].

Epstein, Richard A., Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong? (1986), 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 782, p. 787 [para. 127].

Faulks Committee Report - see United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on Defamation.

Gatley, Libel and Slander (4th Ed. 1953), p. 254 [para. 106].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), pp. 252 [para. 150]; 592 [para. 182]; 593 [paras. 182, 183]; 594 [para. 183]; 600 [para. 176].

Hawreluk, David, The Lawyer's Duty to Himself and the Code of Professional Conduct (1993), 27 L. Soc. Gaz. 119, p. 121 [para. 118].

Ireland, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Civil Law of Defamation (Keane Final Report) (1991), p. 82 [para. 136].

Keane Final Report - see Ireland, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Civil Law of Defamation.

Kirby Committee Report - see Australia, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 11, Unfair Publication: Defamation and Privacy.

Lepofsky, David, Making Sense of the Libel Chill Debate: Do Libel Laws "Chill" the Exercise of Freedom of Ex­pression? (1994), 4 N.J.C.L. 169, p. 197 [para. 117].

Leval, Pierre N., The No-Money, No-Fault Libel Suit: Keeping Sullivan in its Proper Place (1988), 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1287, p. 1288 [para. 130].

Lewis, Anthony, New York Times v. Sullivan Reconsidered: Time to Return to "The Central Meaning of the First Amendment" (1983), 83 Colum. L. Rev. 603, generally [para. 130].

London, Martin, The "Muzzled Media": Constitutional Crisis or Product Liability Scam?, in At What Price? Libel Law and Freedom of the Press (1993), pp. 17 to 20 [para. 130].

McLellan, Anne, and Elman, Bruce P., To Whom Does the Charter Apply? Some Re­cent Cases on Section 32 (1986), 24 Alta. L. Rev. 361, p. 367 [para. 69].

Mosaic Code, generally [para. 109].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (20th Ed. 1992), pp. 166, 167 [para. 146].

Talmud, generally [para. 109].

United Kingdom, Report of the Commit­tee on Defamation (Faulks Committee Report) (1975), p. 169 [para. 136].

Veeder, Van Vechten, The History and Theory of the Law of Defamation (1903), 3 Colum. L. Rev. 546, p. 551 [para. 112].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (2nd Ed. 1991)(Looseleaf Ed.), pp. 11-23, 11-24 [para. 195].

Counsel:

Bryan Finlay, Q.C., and Christopher J. Tzekas, for the appellant, Morris Man­ning;

Marc J. Somerville, Q.C., and R. Ross Wells, for the appellant, the Church of Scientology of Toronto;

Robert P. Armstrong, Q.C., and Kent E. Thomson, for the respondent, Hill;

Lori Sterling and Hart Schwartz, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Robert J. Sharpe and Kent Roach, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Edward M. Morgan, for the interveners, the Writers' Union of Canada, PEN Canada, Canadian Association of Jour­nalists, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, and Book and Periodical Coun­cil;

Peter W. Hogg and Brian MacLeod Rogers, for the interveners, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, Canadian Community Newspapers Association, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Radio-Television News Directors Asso­ciation of Canada, Canadian Book Pub­lishers' Council and Canadian Magazine Publishers' Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Weir & Foulds, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Morris Manning;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Kitchener, Ontario, for the appellant, the Church of Scientology of Toronto;

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Hill;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Writers' Union of Canada, PEN Canada, Canadian Associ-ation of Journalists, Periodical Writers Association of Canada, and Book and Periodical Council;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, Canadian Community Newspapers Association, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Radio-Television News Directors Asso­ciation of Canada, Canadian Book Pub­lishers' Council and Canadian Magazine Publishers' Association.

This appeal was heard on February 20, 1995, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on July 20, 1995, in both official languages, including the following opinions:

Cory, J. (La Forest, Gonthier, McLach­lin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 204;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring - see paragraphs 205 to 210.