## Facts

- Peter Grant, a businessman and developer, owned a lakefront estate near New Liskeard, Ontario, with a small private golf course.
- A newspaper published an article about a proposed expansion of the course, reporting neighbours’ environmental opposition.
- The article reported suspicions that Grant was using political influence, including a relationship with Ontario’s premier, to obtain governmental approval.
- The reporter attempted to obtain Grant’s response; Grant declined to be interviewed.
- Grant and his company sued the publisher, reporter, and related defendants for libel, alleging the article conveyed that he corruptly used political influence.

## Issues

1. Whether Canadian common-law defamation defences adequately reflect freedom of expression values while protecting reputation.
2. Whether to recognize a new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest for defamatory statements of fact.
3. If recognized, what elements govern the defence and what roles do judge and jury play in applying it.
4. Whether the trial judge’s jury instructions on fair comment and related matters required setting aside the verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada recognized a new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.
- The Court held the trial was affected by legal error, including misdirection on the emerging public-interest responsible-journalism concept and errors in fair comment instructions.
- The Court dismissed both the plaintiff’s appeal (seeking reinstatement of the jury verdict) and the defendants’ cross-appeal (seeking dismissal under the new defence).
- The Court ordered a new trial at which defendants could rely on the clarified responsible-communication defence.

## Legal Principles

- Common law in private litigation should develop consistently with constitutional free-expression values while also protecting reputation.
- Responsible communication defence (available to all publishers, not only institutional media) applies where:
  - the publication concerns a matter of public interest; and
  - the publisher acted responsibly, assessed contextually, by diligently attempting to verify the defamatory allegations.
- “Public interest” is broadly understood as matters inviting legitimate public attention or affecting the public, excluding mere private gossip.
- Responsibility is evaluated using non-exhaustive, contextual factors, including:
  - seriousness of the allegation;
  - public importance and urgency;
  - status and reliability of sources;
  - whether the plaintiff’s side was sought and accurately reported;
  - whether publishing the impugned statement was justifiable; and
  - whether public interest lies in the fact the allegation was made (reportage) rather than in its proven truth.
- Allocation of functions:
  - the judge determines whether the subject matter is capable of being of public interest and screens out cases where the defence cannot arise;
  - the jury (or trier of fact) decides whether the publisher acted responsibly on the evidence.
- Fair comment protects opinion rather than defamatory facts; inadequate instructions on distinguishing fact from comment and on the factual basis for comment can warrant a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Court recalibrated defamation law by adopting a responsible-communication defence for public-interest reporting, balancing reputational protection with freedom of expression, and ordered a new trial due to instructional errors under the prior framework.


Grant v. Torstar Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 (Can. 2009)