Oh yes, I meant "sentence" as in "judgement".
I now see that I was reading and quoting from previous degrees of judgement which are reported in the document after the abstract. Also the dissenting opinions are from a previous degree of judgement.
The sentence of the Supreme Court comes at the end of the document. The concentrated juice is at paragraphs 60 - 65.
Basically according to this judgement artistic expression, as I read it now, does not overcome the right-of-image, while a stronger public interest (information useful to society) would. The entire judgements seems to have concrete consequences for the artistic publication of "candid portraits" (or for the artistic publication of portraits without consent) especially when the person might have been contacted by the photographer.
I still don't understand if and how it would apply, for instance, to a person shouting during a public manifestation when the person is the only one portrayed in the picture (which would be newsworthy, but would depict only that person).
I also wonder now how a similar case would be dealt with in Italy. Photographers doing portraits normally ask for a model release. A "candid portrait" in the park would probably not be sufficient to avoid the need for the model release. A picture where the person is at full figure or so, immersed in the scene, (e.g. a person reading a newspaper in the park, with some substantial park background), would be in a grey zone in Italy as well if there was some kind of commercial intent (selling the portrait as art for instance) or if publication in a magazine were involved.
I frankly suppose that the person involved, the one sitting in the park bench, in Italy should either claim defamation or that it is precisely his image which gave value to the image. In the case of a portrait, that can always be claimed. In the case of the person in a bench in the park, the photographer would say that the scene is the same whoever the person on the bench.
That, in Québec, would instead make a situation where the person on the bench might reasonably expect to win a case.