Mainly, it will make defamation more difficult to prove in courtrooms because it expands the way it can be defended.

The country's highest court ruled that B.C. radio personality Rafe Mair used fair comment in a 1999 radio editorial that was critical of B.C. Christian values advocate Kari Simpson, who was opposed to the use of gay teaching materials in schools. Mair's editorial included references to Nazi Germany and the Ku Klux Klan.

Simpson took issue with his commentary, alleging it implied that she condoned violence against homosexuals, even though Mair said in his editorial that he wasn't claiming she was actually advocating violence. Simpson sued Mair for defamation after the piece aired.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision has wide implications for defamation suits in this country. (CBC)

A lower court decision found that Mair's radio editorial about Simpson, which included references to the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler, was protected by fair comment — a common defence in defamation cases.

The B.C. Supreme Court overturned that ruling in 2006, saying that Mair's employer at the time — WIC radio — hadn't made an adequate defence.

But in the June 27 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the original finding and absolved Mair. (Read the full judgment.)

In doing so, the court also rewrote the legal test for fair comment, in effect widening the scope for its use in defamation suits.

Before this ruling, a traditional element of the fair comment defence was that the person making the comment must believe in what they are saying.

The SCOC's revision of the test of fair comment now says that opinions made within editorial commentary, even outrageous commentary, should be looked at on the basis of whether any honest person could have held the same opinion if they were presented with the same set of facts. The fair comment defence means that it must still pass the tests of being factual, without malicious intent and made in the public interest, the SCOC said.

Binnie said that there was no proof that Mair's comments, although "outrageous," were made with malice, and thus his right to voice his opinions was protected by the courts.

CBS NEWS