Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
Encyclopedia
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
was a libel case against the Church of Scientology
, in which the Supreme Court of Canada
interpreted Ontario's
libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
.
After consideration, the Supreme Court of Canada
determined that it would not follow the actual malice
standard set forth in the famous United States Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
held a press conference on the courthouse steps in Toronto. 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 Attorney
, Casey Hill. The motion alleged Hill had misled a judge and had breached orders sealing certain documents belonging to Scientology in R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
.
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. Thus Hill launched a lawsuit for damages
in libel against the appellants. Both appellants were found jointly liable for general damages of C$
300,000 and Scientology alone was liable for aggravated damages of C$500,000 and punitive damages of C$800,000. The judgement was affirmed in a 1993 decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The major issues raised in this appeal were: Was the common law
of defamation valid in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and whether the jury's award of damages could stand.
action, in a manner consistent with the Charter. 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.
, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, that the Charter cannot rewrite the common law, though the common law should be interpreted according to general Charter principles. This did not mean that the Court had to adopt the American jurisprudence
"actual malice" standard of libel.
In refusing to change Canadian law and bringing it more into line with "actual malice" standard applied in the US law (following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
case) Cory J., writing for the majority, stated (at ¶ 138):
In L'Heureux-Dubé's concurring reasons her analysis of the Charter issue applying to common law is succinctly stated: (at ¶ 206):
. Scientology alone was liable for aggravated damages of $500,000 CAD and punitive damages of $800,000 CAD, making Scientology's total liability $1,600,000 CAD.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
was a libel case against the Church of Scientology
Church of Scientology
The Church of Scientology is an organization devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system. The Church of Scientology International is the Church of Scientology's parent organization, and is responsible for the overall ecclesiastical management, dissemination and...
, in which the Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
interpreted Ontario's
Ontario
Ontario is a province of Canada, located in east-central Canada. It is Canada's most populous province and second largest in total area. It is home to the nation's most populous city, Toronto, and the nation's capital, Ottawa....
libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
.
After consideration, the Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
determined that it would not follow the actual malice
Actual malice
Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not...
standard set forth in the famous United States Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the...
, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Overview
On 17 September 1984 Morris Manning, a lawyer working for the Church, and representatives of the Church of ScientologyScientology
Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by science fiction and fantasy author L. Ron Hubbard , starting in 1952, as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics...
held a press conference on the courthouse steps in Toronto. Manning, wearing his barrister
Barrister
A barrister is a member of one of the two classes of lawyer found in many common law jurisdictions with split legal professions. Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy, drafting legal pleadings and giving expert legal opinions...
's gown, read from and commented upon allegations in a notice of motion by Scientology, intending to commence criminal contempt proceedings against a Crown Attorney
Crown attorney
Crown Attorneys or Crown Counsel are the prosecutors in the legal system of Canada.Crown Attorneys represent the Crown and act as prosecutor in proceedings under the Criminal Code of Canada...
, Casey Hill. The motion alleged Hill had misled a judge and had breached orders sealing certain documents belonging to Scientology in R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
The Queen v. Church of Scientology of Toronto was a 1992 Canadian criminal case involving the Church of Scientology and members of the organization...
.
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. Thus Hill launched a lawsuit for damages
Damages
In law, damages is an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury; grammatically, it is a singular noun, not plural.- Compensatory damages :...
in libel against the appellants. Both appellants were found jointly liable for general damages of C$
Canadian dollar
The Canadian dollar is the currency of Canada. As of 2007, the Canadian dollar is the 7th most traded currency in the world. It is abbreviated with the dollar sign $, or C$ to distinguish it from other dollar-denominated currencies...
300,000 and Scientology alone was liable for aggravated damages of C$500,000 and punitive damages of C$800,000. The judgement was affirmed in a 1993 decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The major issues raised in this appeal were: Was the common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
of defamation valid in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
and whether the jury's award of damages could stand.
Appellant's arguments
The Church of Scientology contended that the common law of defamation in Canada failed to evolve with Canadian society. Too much emphasis in the common law had been placed on the need to protect the reputation of plaintiffs at the expense of freedom of expression. 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. The appellants added that if the element of government action was insufficient to attract Charter scrutiny, the principles of the common law ought to be interpreted, even in a purely private lawPrivate law
Private law is that part of a civil law legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts or torts, as it is called in the common law, and the law of obligations as it is called in civilian legal systems...
action, in a manner consistent with the Charter. 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 Court's reasons
In two opinions, (Majority opinion written by Cory J. per La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ., concurring in result: L'Heureux-Dubé J.) the court rejected those arguments while continuing to apply RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.
RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, is the seminal Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms decision that states that the Charter applies to governmental action, and to the common law except where matters are solely between private parties...
, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, that the Charter cannot rewrite the common law, though the common law should be interpreted according to general Charter principles. This did not mean that the Court had to adopt the American jurisprudence
Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. Scholars of jurisprudence, or legal theorists , hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, of legal reasoning, legal systems and of legal institutions...
"actual malice" standard of libel.
In refusing to change Canadian law and bringing it more into line with "actual malice" standard applied in the US law (following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the...
case) Cory J., writing for the majority, stated (at ¶ 138):
- Freedom of speechFreedom of speechFreedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used...
, like any other freedom, is subject to the law and must be balanced against the essential need of the individuals to protect their reputation. The words of Diplock J. in Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd.Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd.In Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, a House of Lords case, the famous speech of Lord Diplock states succinctly the principle that freedom of speech is subject to the law and like any other freedom there is a balancing...
, [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, at pp. 745-46, are worth repeating:
-
- Freedom of speech, like the other fundamental freedoms, is freedom under the law, and over the years the law has maintained a balance between, on the one hand, the right of the individual . . . whether he is in public life or not, to his unsullied reputation if he deserves it, and on the other hand . . . the right of the public . . . to express their views honestly and fearlessly on matters of public interest, even though that involves strong criticism of the conduct of public people.
In L'Heureux-Dubé's concurring reasons her analysis of the Charter issue applying to common law is succinctly stated: (at ¶ 206):
- First, however, in order to dispel any possible confusion regarding the applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the common law, I note that this issue can be easily summarized in the following two principles, both of which were first articulated by McIntyre J. in RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, is the seminal Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms decision that states that the Charter applies to governmental action, and to the common law except where matters are solely between private parties...
, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573:
-
- 1 The Charter does not directly apply to the common law unless it is the basis of some governmental action.
-
- 2 Even though the Charter does not directly apply to the common law absent government action, the common law must nonetheless be developed in accordance with Charter values. (To the same effect, see R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654, Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, and R. v. ParkR. v. ParkR. v. Park [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, is a Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the mistaken belief defence – i.e. that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that he had consent to engage in sexual relations with the complainant – and the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, per L'Heureux-Dubé J.)
- 2 Even though the Charter does not directly apply to the common law absent government action, the common law must nonetheless be developed in accordance with Charter values. (To the same effect, see R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654, Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
- In other words, the basic rule is that absent government action, the Charter applies only indirectly to the common law.
Result
The Supreme Court upholds the Ontario Court of Appeal decision and the underlying jury award of general, aggravated and punitive damages.Largest libel award in Canada
The jury award that was upheld in this appeal was the largest libel award in Canadian history. Barrister Manning and the Church of Scientology were found jointly liable for general damages of $300,000 CADCanadian dollar
The Canadian dollar is the currency of Canada. As of 2007, the Canadian dollar is the 7th most traded currency in the world. It is abbreviated with the dollar sign $, or C$ to distinguish it from other dollar-denominated currencies...
. Scientology alone was liable for aggravated damages of $500,000 CAD and punitive damages of $800,000 CAD, making Scientology's total liability $1,600,000 CAD.
See also
- Prud’homme v. Prud’homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663, 2002 SCC 85 http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc85/2002scc85.html
- Néron Communication Marketing Inc. v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 95, 2004 SCC 53 http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc53/2004scc53.html
- Scientology and the legal systemScientology and the legal systemThe Church of Scientology has been involved in court disputes in several countries. In some cases, when the Church has initiated the dispute, question has been raised as to its motives. The Church says that its use of the legal system is necessary to protect its intellectual property and its right...