This report is concerned about the law as it has stood since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Chernesky v Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King [1978]6 WWR 618. It reviews the existing law of defamation, fair comment, the media, and the effect of the Chernesky decision and proposes twos changes to existing legislation.

The law laid down by the Cherneskey case places a publisher in greater jeopardy for publishing opinions of others, which it does not share, than for publishing opinions of others which it does share. There is no justification for a legal distinction that results in protecting the dissemination of opinions of those who control the means of widespread dissemination, and inhibiting the dissemination of opinions of those who do not. Such a distinction discourages, rather than encourages, the open discussion of ideas. The report recommends that that the law be changed in order to eliminate this distinction.

The first recommendation is that the law should be changed so that a publisher will not be in greater jeopardy under the law of defamation for the publication of opinions of others which he does not share than for the publication of opinions of others which he does share. The second recommendation is that the Defamation Act be amended. Where the defendant published alleged defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment shall not fail, for the reason only that the defendant did not hold the opinion, if the defendant did not know that the person expressing the opinion did not hold the opinion and a person could honestly hold the opinion. The defendant is not under a duty to inquire into whether the person expressing the opinion does or does not hold the opinion.