Simon's Legal Resources

Torts - Defamation - Charter

. Maggi v. Smith

In Maggi v. Smith (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed a Small Claims Court appeal, this brought against findings "that the appellant had defamed the respondent through statements published on the social media platform X and awarded damages of $25,000 together with costs".

Here the court considers the interaction of Charter s.2(b) ['freedom of expression'] and defamation law:

Freedom of Expression

[33] The appellant further argues that the deputy judge failed to give adequate effect to freedom of expression values because the publication concerned matters at the heart of the democratic process. I disagree.

[34] The deputy judge expressly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61. In discussing the balance between protection of reputation and freedom of expression, the Supreme Court observed that the common law should provide a defence that would permit publishers to escape liability where they acted responsibly in attempting to verify information on a matter of public interest. The deputy judge specifically acknowledged this principle and expressly stated:

I am prepared to find that the subject matter of this tweet is something that can be considered a matter of public interest as it involves a nomination vote which is part of our democratic process.

[35] Accordingly, the deputy judge did not ignore freedom of expression considerations. He expressly recognized them.

[36] The appellant's submission ultimately amounts to an invitation to modify the law of defamation so as to provide greater protection for statements made in the course of political debate where the speaker honestly believes them to be true. Whatever the merits of that policy argument, it is not supported by existing authority.

[37] In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, Cory J. observed at para. 108:

Canadian law recognizes that the right to free expression does not confer a licence to ruin reputations.

[38] Political expression is unquestionably important. So too is the protection of reputation. The democratic significance of a topic does not lessen the need for accuracy when serious allegations are made against individuals. If anything, it heightens the importance of ensuring that factual allegations concerning those who seek or hold public office have an adequate evidentiary foundation.

[39] The deputy judge properly balanced those competing interests.