Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Torts - Libel - Defences - Public interest responsible journalism - Content of defence - Procedure for assessing availability of defence - Standard of review - Whether the procedure set out by the Court of Appeal is contrary to the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, which, like the defamation statutes in Canada’s other common law provinces, provides that a libel jury has the right to render a general verdict - What are the fundamental principles of the defence? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s reasons.

Grant, a prominent citizen and businessman, friend to Premier Mike Harris, and generous contributor to the Conservative Party, sought permission to expand a three-hole private golf course on a plot of Crown land he had acquired. The plot was adjacent to the property upon which his home and business office were built. The project required government approval with respect to, inter alia, environmental issues.

On the date of a public meeting called by the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to the proposal, the Toronto Star published a front page article regarding the proposed golf course expansion. Inter alia, the article quoted a cottager, who said, “Everyone thinks it’s a done deal because of Grant’s influence – but most of all his Mike Harris ties”. Grant sued the newspaper for libel, claiming that the newspaper suggested that he had used political influence to circumvent the concerns of local citizens and to bypass the normal approval process.

The trial judge rejected the defence of qualified privilege and sent the case to the jury, which found the newspaper liable and awarded Grant $400,000 in general damages, $25,000 in aggravated damages, and $1 million in punitive damages; it awarded Grant Forest Products $50,000 in general damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.