Canadian defamation law

At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the reputation of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.

To establish that the comment was fair, the defendant must also prove, on an objective basis, that the defamatory opinion was one which a person could have honestly expressed based on the proven facts.

The breadth of absolute privilege includes testimony before a judicial or quasi-judicial institution, as well all speech in Parliament and provincial legislatures.

In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the relationship of the common law of defamation and the Charter.

The Court held that the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression did not require any significant changes to the common law of libel.

[citation needed] Once a claim has been made out the defendant may avail themself to a defence of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege.

Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.

[citation needed] Another common tactic in political libel cases is the filing of a strategic lawsuit against public participation ("SLAPP").

[citation needed] In Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp.,[20] interveners made extensive argument[18] against assuming jurisdiction even when there were very clearly copies distributed and read, on the grounds that this imposed too much of a defence burden.

Such tactics can backfire seriously however if a powerful defendant such as a mass media organization is perceived as abusing its access to the public, sometimes resulting in large awards.

[citation needed] Some noted Canadian lawyers have advised that every possible alternative to litigation should be employed by a client genuinely fearful of reputation loss, before filing suit, simply because the "scorched earth" tactic has become so common.

The infamous McLibel case is often cited as a warning against spending vast sums and ending up with bad publicity and an uncollectible judgment.

[6] However, in upholding the "responsible communication" defense in Grant v. Torstar, the Supreme Court of Canada also flatly rejected the strict liability standard in common law jurisdictions as well.