Do you wonder how it is that the media are free to publish all sorts of unproven allegations against Mayor Rob Ford?

These allegations include drinking while driving, impaired driving, snorting cocaine, smoking marijuana, using escorts or prostitutes and consuming OxyContin pills.

Some of these allegations have been denied and none has been proven in court.

Some of the allegations are based on rumours, suspicions and beliefs. Some are based on hearsay.

So how is it that the media are allowed to publish these allegations without fear of a defamation lawsuit?

The short answer is that all of the allegations are contained in an affidavit used by police to obtain a search warrant.

The long answer takes us back to a landmark 1995 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Until 1995 the law was clear: Fair and accurate reports of proceedings that take place in open court are privileged, meaning no one can sue the media for libel or slander.

But reports of documents filed prior to trial, such as Statements of Claim or affidavits, were not considered to be privileged. That’s because these documents had neither been tested in court nor were they part of any public court proceeding.

The media could publish allegations contained in such documents, but did so at their legal peril.

No defence of privilege was available and the media could be held responsible for repeating defamatory material contained in such documents.

But the law changed as a result of a press conference held on September 17, 1984.

The Church of Scientology held the event to announce the launching of a contempt application against a Crown attorney.

The essence of the contempt application was that this Crown had participated in the misleading of a judge and had participated in, or aided and abetted others in, the violation of a court order.

The allegations in the application were false and scurrilous.

Reports of the press conference and the contempt allegations were broadcast and published.

The contempt motion was subsequently dismissed and the Crown attorney commenced a defamation lawsuit against the Church of Scientology, its lawyer who spoke at the press conference, and the media.

The media defendants settled the lawsuit prior to trial.

They had no reason to believe the law was about to undergo a major shift.

The court ordered the Church of Scientology and its lawyer to pay a damage award of $1.6 million.

Appeals were unsuccessful, but the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada resulted in a substantial change to defamation law. The Supreme Court decided to extend the defamation privilege so that the privilege covered not only documents used in public court proceedings, but all documents filed with any court.

This extension of the law did not benefit either the Church of Scientology or its lawyer as they had acted maliciously.

But the ruling caused a significant shift in the reporting of court documents.

The media were now free to report on all manner of court documents and took this up with relish, reporting on allegations contained in lawsuits prior to any court proceedings, as well as allegations contained in affidavits used to obtain search warrants, or in support of court motions or applications.

Of course, the extension of privilege to report on any court document did not come without conditions.

To fit under the privilege, the media report must be fair and accurate.

That’s why news reports on court documents always mention the source of the information and state that none of the allegations has been proven in court.

Media reports on the Ford allegations have complied with these conditions.

The Ford saga shows the wisdom of the Supreme Court decision to extend privilege.

With it, the media are free to report and the public is able to read the allegations against Ford.

With this knowledge, we are better able to exercise our democratic rights.