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 counsel, Casey Hill.

At the contempt proceeding where the appellants were seeking a fine or imprisonment against the defendant, the allegations against Hill were found to be completely untrue and without foundation.

The major issues raised in this appeal were: whether the common law of defamation was valid in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether the jury's award of damages could stand.

"[2] The Church of Scientology contended that the common law of defamation in Canada failed to evolve with Canadian society.

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.

This, they argued, could be achieved only 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 legal effect of the defence of qualified privilege is to rebut the inference, which normally arises from the publication of defamatory words, that they were spoken with malice.

At the time the defamatory statement were made, Casey Hill was employed as counsel with the Crown Law Office, Criminal Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario.