Law

Steve Anderson of OpenMedia.ca appeared before a House of Commons committee today to discuss net neutrality, media ownership and internet access. Listen to the podcast...

Commentary
The new defence of responsible communication is good news for the media, but Ryerson University's Jeffrey A. Dvorkin doubts it will usher in a new wave investigative journalism. As layoffs continue and newsrooms are pared down to the editorial bone, the ability of news organizations to engage in deep, contextual investigative journalism is far from what it once was, or what it should be.

And lawyer Alan Shanoff, who teaches media law at Humber College, cautions the devil will be in the details as judges and juries apply the court's broad definitions of public interest and responsible journalism to stories targetted with libel suits. Read Shanoff's columns in The Law Times and the Toronto Sun.

News
The Supreme Court of Canada has created a new libel defence – the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest. In a landmark ruling that orders new trials in libel actions against two Ontario newspapers, the court introduced the British defence of responsible journalism with a new name and some made-in-Canada modifications. The defence is based on the conduct of the journalists and editors who produce the story, and can defeat a libel claim even if some facts and allegations published or broadcast turn out to be wrong or false.

The court established a broad definition of the public interest, saying it is not limited to stories on politics and can apply to stories of interest to a limited audience if the subject is of public importance. The rulings set seven criteria for judging whether journalists acted responsibly, including the seriousness of the allegations, the reliability of sources and whether the person defamed was given a chance to respond. There are two other important aspects to the ruling...