The Supreme Court of Canada says hyperlinking to defamatory material is not libel (which great news for me).  An excerpt of the ruling via the CBC:

"The internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks. Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression," the ruling said. "The potential 'chill' in how the internet functions could be devastating, since primary article authors would unlikely want to risk liability for linking to another article over whose changeable content they have no control. "

The top court’s decision was a unanimous one and should alleviate fears that the internet would become much more restrictive (or create a “chill” as media and civil liberty groups have said).

The case originated out of B.C. when former Green Party campaign manager Wayne Crookes sought damages from internet blogger Jon Newton over links contained in a July 2006 article Newton wrote and posted on his website p2pnet.net entitled "Free Speech in Canada".

Crookes's lawyer, Donald Jordan, argued that by creating the links, Newton was himself a publisher of the allegedly libellous material and that hyperlinks are part of the content of the primary article. By linking to a website, one is inviting and facilitating the reader to go to that website, it was argued.

Jordan said internet users should be responsible enough to review material and make a judgment before linking to it.

But I won’t bore you with all the details of the ruling. I’ll just hyperlink to the Supreme Court’s decision and you can read it for yourself.