Grant v. Torstar Corp.

Grant v. Torstar Corp.

The common law is modified to recognize a new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest: (A) the judge determines whether the publication concerns a matter of public interest; (B) if so, the defendant must show they acted responsibly in attempting to verify allegations having regard to relevant factors (seriousness, public importance, urgency, source reliability, opportunity to seek plaintiff's response, justifiability of inclusion, reportage, and other circumstances); on the facts the trial judge erred in failing to leave responsible communication and correct fair comment directions to the jury, requiring a new trial.

Citation
2009 SCC 61
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Peter Grant; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Grant Forest Products Inc.; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Torstar Corporation; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Toronto Star Newspapers Limited; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Bill Schiller; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: John Honderich; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Mary Deanne Shears; Intervener: Ottawa Citizen; Intervener: Canadian Newspaper Association and multiple media interveners; Intervener: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Intervener: Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Intervener: Danno Cusson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal and Cross Appeal; Judgment and Order for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Responsible Communication Defence, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Reportage, Role of Judge and Jury, Malice
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Constitutional Law Administrative Law Responsible Communication Defence Fair Comment Qualified Privilege Reportage +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Grant

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Grant Forest Products Inc.

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Torstar Corporation

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Bill Schiller

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

John Honderich

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Mary Deanne Shears

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Ottawa Citizen

Intervener

Canadian Newspaper Association and multiple media interveners

Intervener

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Intervener

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Intervener

Danno Cusson

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal and Cross Appeal; Judgment and Order for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether common law should recognize a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest
  2. 2 What are the elements of that defence
  3. 3 Whether the judge or the jury should decide aspects of the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The common law is modified to recognize a new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest: (A) the judge determines whether the publication concerns a matter of public interest; (B) if so, the defendant must show they acted responsibly in attempting to verify allegations having regard to relevant factors (seriousness, public importance, urgency, source reliability, opportunity to seek plaintiff's response, justifiability of inclusion, reportage, and other circumstances); on the facts the trial judge erred in failing to leave responsible communication and correct fair comment directions to the jury, requiring a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • New trial ordered pursuant to Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43 s.134(6)
  • Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada