Court agreed to the defence of public interest, raised by defendants on ground of investigations made regarding the accuracy of the equipment to avoid incorrect readings when used by the police on motorist.
The public interest defence is identical to that available in cases concerning breach of confidence,[8] and is available when the necessity to publish more than just short extracts is required.
[9] It is distinct from the power arising from the inherent jurisdiction of the courts "to refuse to allow their process to be used [to] give effect to contracts which are ... illegal, immoral or prejudicial to family life because they offend against the policy of the law.
"[14] He gave several guidelines for analyzing what is fair or not: Hubbard was adopted in Canadian jurisprudence in 1997 in Allen v Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd,[15] which ousted the 1943 Exchequer Court of Canada case of Zamacois v Douville and Marchand[16] in the area of what constitutes fair dealing in illustrating a current news story.
In so holding, Sedgwick J observed: To the extent that this decision is considered an authority for the proposition that reproduction of an entire newspaper article or, in this case, a photograph of a magazine cover, can never be considered a fair dealing with the article (or magazine cover) for purposes of news summary or reporting, we respectfully disagree.CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada,[17] expanded upon that, with the Supreme Court of Canada holding that fair dealing, as well as related exceptions, is a user’s right.