You might consider the new defamation common law defence of "responsible communication on a matter of public interest" as an example of this "trend". Traditionally being "responsible" or "reasonable" did not exonerate a defamer from liability for defamation at common law, unlike the civil law's "fault" requirement for liability in defamation. Now being "responsible" is a defence in the context of mattes of public interest, even if the material is false and defamatory and not protected by one of the other defences. A small example, perhaps, but it might be useful to note it.

Lewis Klar

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Harrington Matthew P. <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca> wrote:

Dear Colleagues

I am working on a short piece, in which I take the position that the Canada Supreme Court has begun to import concepts of the civil law into the private law of contract and tort, or at least expand common law rules in directions that might reflect civil law values. At present, it’s very skeletal. I see this tendency, for example, in Bhasin where, in my view, the court adopts a view of good faith that fits nicely in the civil law, but is something of a development in the common law. (I know some of you disagree with this view.)

I`m wondering if others see a similar trend? Or is this mountain out of molehill?

Best regards.

---------------------------------------------

Matthew P. Harrington

Professeur

Faculté de droit

Université de Montréal

Montréal, Québec

514.343.6105

matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca

----------------------------------------------

Lewis N. Klar, Q.C.,

Edmonton: 780 481 2150

Phoenix: 602 466 1376

From:	Lewis N Klar <lklar@ualberta.ca>
To:	Harrington Matthew P. <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>
CC:	obligations@uwo.ca
Date:	24/02/2015 20:09:33 UTC
Subject:	Re: Civilising the Common Law