Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
| Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: February 20, 1995 Judgment: July 20, 1995 |
|
| Full case name | Morris Manning and the Church of Scientology of Toronto v. S. Casey Hill |
| Citations | [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 |
| Docket No. | 24216 |
| Prior history | judgment for plaintiff (Court of Appeal for Ontario) |
| Ruling | Appeal dismissed |
| Holding | |
| Charter does not protect individuals from tort of defamation. The tort must be in line with Charter values. | |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Cory J. (paras. 1-204), joined by La Forest, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. |
| Concurrence | L'Heureux-Dubé J. (paras. 205-210) |
| Lamer C.J. and Sopinka J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 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).
On 17 September 1984 Morris Manning, a lawyer working for the Church, and representatives of the Church of Scientology 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.
...
Wikipedia