"Scientology decided that Casey Hill was the enemy and it set out to destroy him", the court said in its 129 page judgement. "It levelled false charges against him. It prosecuted him on those charges ... In summary, the evidence suggests that Scientology set upon a persistent course of character assassination over a period of seven years with the intention of destroying Casey Hill."

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, 1995 SCC 67 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology interpreting Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It resulted in the largest ever libel award in Canadian history.

Describing it as being "in a class by itself," the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a $1.6-million jury award to Casey Hill, an Ontario government lawyer who sued the Church of Scientology for libel over comments made at a news conference in 1984.

"Scientology decided that Casey Hill was the enemy and it set out to destroy him," the court says in a 129-page judgment released yesterday. "It levelled false charges against him. It prosecuted him on those charges. . . . In summary, the evidence suggests that Scientology set upon a persistent course of character assassination over a period of seven years with the intention of destroying Casey Hill."

200     There can be no doubt that the conduct of Scientology in the publication of the injurious false statement pertaining to its "enemy" was malicious. Its publication was carefully planned and carried out in a manner which ensured its widest possible dissemination in the most damaging manner imaginable. The allegation made against Hill was devastating. It was said that he had been guilty of breach of trust, breach of a court order and that his conduct and behaviour was criminal. Scientology's actions from the time of publication, throughout the trial, and after the trial decision was rendered constituted a continuing attempt at character assassination by means of a statement which it knew to be false. It was such outrageous conduct that it cried out for the imposition of punitive damages. [...]

203     The award of punitive damages, therefore, served a rational purpose in this case. Further, the circumstances presented in this exceptional case demonstrate that there was such insidious, pernicious and persistent malice that the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be excessive. Scientology has alleged that the size of the award of punitive damages had a chilling effect on its right to freedom of expression. However as stated earlier, in spite of the slow and methodical progress of this case to trial and appeal, and despite the motion brought six years before the trial which drew attention to the need for evidence, Scientology adduced no evidence as to the chilling effect of the award. In its absence, this argument should not be considered. It may be that different factors will have to be taken into consideration where evidence is adduced and where a member of the media is a party to the action. However, those are considerations for another case on another day. [...]