Today the Supreme Court of Canada released the decision Grant v. Torstar Corp.,* which changed the law on defemation.
The Court held that the existing law on defamation i.e., libel (written material) and slander (spoken words) should be modified to provide greater protection for communications on matters of public interest. The Court decided that the law up to now, with respect to statements that are reliable and important to public debate, has not been given adequate weight to the constitutional value of free expression.
Traditionally, there have been limited defences available to defamation actions. Below are two examples:
- the truth - Even the ugly truth cannot be held liable for damages to one’s reputation
- privileges - Certain types of communication are protected from defamatory claims, such as debates in the legislature
The Supreme Court ruled that these limited defences were inadequate in protecting the constitutional value of free speech. Prior to the decision, the law of defamation accorded no protection for statements on matters of public interest published to the world at large if they could not be proven to be true.
Therefore, the Court decided that a new defence of “responsible communication” should be recognized.
For protection through the defence of responsible communication, the following criteria must be met:
- The publication must be on a matter of public interests
- Tthe defendant must show that publication was responsible, in that he or she was diligent in trying to verify the allegation(s), bearing in mindo all the relevant circumstances
In recognizing the new defence of responsible communication, the Court reasoned as follows:
Although the right to free expression does not confer a licence to ruin reputation, when proper weight is given to the constitutional value of free expression on matters of public interest, the balance tips in favour of broadening the defences available to those who communicate facts it is in the public’s interest to know.
* Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61



