Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. [20] Page 14 Ultimately, the question of whether the Commonwealth or American approach is preferable has a considerable element of policy inherent in it. Recently, in Gilles [2004] 3 S.C.R. 95, 2004 SCC 53, a defamation case brought against the CBC by a communications consultant employed by the Chambre des notaries, LeBel J. for the majority remarked on the balancing courts must undertake in defamation actions (at paras. 52 and 54): Despite its undoubted importance, freedom of expression is not absolute. As this Court noted in Prud'homme [v. Prud'homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663, 2002 SCC 85], at para. 43, freedom of expression can be limited by the requirements imposed by other people’s right to the protection of their reputation. Cory J. observed in Hill [v. Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130], at para. 108, that reputation, as an aspect of personality, is equally worthy of protection in a democratic society concerned about respect for the individual: Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of an individual. That importance must, in turn, be based upon the good repute of a person. It is that good repute which enhances an individual's sense of worth and value. False allegations can so very quickly and completely destroy a good reputation. A reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former lustre. A democratic society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited. *** In an action for defamation the two fundamental values of freedom of expression and the right to respect for one's reputation must be weighed against each other to find the necessary equilibrium.… [Emphasis of LeBel J.] 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) E. Néron Communication Marketing Inc. v. Chambre des notaries du Québec,