Hill v. Church of Scientology Lecture 2 Notes

The lecture series on the Hill versus Church of Scientology of Toronto case will likely span three parts due to the extensive material.
The lectures aim to provide an understanding of defamation law and its intersection with new media, particularly how the state regulates communication.
Defamation law balances an individual's reputation with the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression (Section 2b).

The focus is on a press conference on the steps of Osgoode Hall, which led to Casey Hill suing the Church of Scientology of Toronto and Morris Manning for defamation.
The background context, including the Felski memorandum, is important for understanding the falsehoods in the motion for contempt.
The defamation action commenced after the press conference resulted in national media coverage.
The lecture will begin on page 1141 of the course pack.

September 1984: Morris Manning, with representatives of the Church of Scientology of Toronto, held a press conference at Osgoode Hall.
Manning, in barrister's gown, read allegations from a notice of motion seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Casey Hill.
The notice of motion alleged that Casey Hill misled a judge and breached orders sealing Scientology documents.
Scientology sought a fine or imprisonment for Casey Hill.
The allegations against Casey Hill were found untrue.
Casey Hill sued Manning and Scientology for libel. He won the case, which was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed two major constitutional questions:
- The damages awarded (not covered in detail in the lecture).
- Whether the common law of defamation is inconsistent with Charter rights and freedoms (the primary focus).

The history between Casey Hill and Scientology is extensive.
Background details help understand the context leading up to the press conference.
The contempt motion sought by Scientology and Manning was based on falsehoods.
The defamation proceeding hinges on the allegation that the statements made at the press conference were untrue and harmed Casey Hill's reputation.

November: Background between Casey Hill and Scientology.
09/11/1984: Morris Manning was retained by the Church of Scientology of Toronto.
Earl Smith organized the press conference and invited major news organizations.
Manning read a passage from the notice of motion and distributed copies along with a chronology of events prepared by Scientology.

Patricia Felsky's report indicated, "there was no evidence to support any allegation that the sealed envelopes had been tampered with by the OPP."

The defense of justification (truth) was initially entered but later withdrawn by Scientology and Morris Manning.
The defense of qualified privilege is more important.
- Key point: privilege attaches to the occasion, not the communication itself.
- Qualified privilege applies when there is a duty to communicate defamatory statements and a corresponding duty to receive them.
- Morris Manning argued he had a duty to his client to read the allegations, and the media had a duty to report them.
- The defense of qualified privilege was not available due to Manning's actions.

Summary of the judgments below.
- Don't spend too much time on the judgment of the Court of Appeal unless interested; focus on the Supreme Court's reasons for judgment.

The analysis section of the reasons for judgment reiterates the two main constitutional issues.
The critical point is whether the common law of defamation is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Manning and Scientology sought to have the Supreme Court modify Canada's common law defamation by adopting the actual malice standard of liability from the New York Times versus Sullivan case.

The actual malice standard of liability places an extra burden on a plaintiff (especially a public figure) in a defamation case.
- The plaintiff must prove the statements were defamatory and were made with actual malice (spite and ill will) or with reckless disregard for the truth.
The United States Supreme Court introduced this standard to protect vigorous criticism of government institutions and officials.
- It requires public officials to accept that falsehoods may be published about them.

The appellants argued that the common law of defamation has failed to keep pace with the evolution of Canadian society.
They contended that defamation law places too much emphasis on protecting reputation at the expense of freedom of expression.
They argued that this is an unwarranted restriction in a free and democratic society.
They also argued that even if there is no government action, the principles of common law should be interpreted consistently with the Charter.

The Charter only applies to government action (Section 32).
The common law of defamation involves private litigation, not government action.
The appellants argued that Casey Hill was acting as an agent of the state, making the lawsuit government action.
They wanted the Supreme Court to recognize that the common law of defamation is inconsistent with the Charter and adopt the actual malice standard of liability.

Morris Manning argued for qualified privilege for a lawyer reading and commenting in public on a notice of motion.
- He believed the document was filed in court.
The broader discussion involves the publicity generated by media and the obligations of lawyers and media organizations.

The appellants argued that Casey Hill was an agent of the Crown, and the defamatory statements were related to his official acts.
The court did not accept this argument, as their submissions had no legal, evidentiary, or logical basis.
Charter status cannot be determined by the nature of the allegations but depends on the circumstances of the libel proceedings.

Reputation is an integral and fundamentally important aspect of every individual. It exists for everyone quite apart from employment.

The common law of defamation is consistent with charter values.
Reputation and freedom of expression are both core values.
The Supreme Court concluded there was no government action in the defamation suit.
There is no government action involved in this defamation suit., so it must now be determined whether a change or modification in the law of defamation is required to make it comply with the underlying values upon which the charter is founded.
Private parties don't owe each other constitutional duties, and their cause of action cannot be based upon a charter right.