Dan Henry, CBC's senior legal counsel, has blogged about the Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen et al decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Justice Sharpe said he was steering a middle course between the restrictive traditional Canadian common law of defamation and the alternative U.S. approach.

In the U.S., if a media organization publishes information about a public official or public figure, it can succeed in its defence even if the information turns out to be defamatory and untrue, unless the person suing proves that the journalists proceeded with “actual malice”: i.e. they knew, or ought to have known, that what they were publishing was false. There is no requirement there to have been “responsible” or “fair”, in the eyes of a judge or jury.

Under our new defence, if a media organization publishes information on any matter of public interest, it can succeed even if the information turns out to be defamatory and untrue, if it can convince the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the steps it took in gathering and publishing were “responsible and fair.”