It was a legal battle lasting nearly four years.

That's how long ago a Superior Court judge ordered Hamilton Spectator reporter Ken Peters to name an individual and thereby identify a confidential source for a story. The penalty for refusing could have been a jail term.

Peters did refuse and was found in contempt of court. He was ordered to pay legal costs of $31,600, the largest contempt penalty handed out to a journalist or media outlet in Canadian history.

What followed will change the course of journalism in Canada.

For the next four years, The Spectator and Peters, working with legal counsel Brian Rogers, fought to have the conviction overturned, and for journalists to have some protections when it comes to keeping promises not to identify a source for a story.

This month, in a judgment reported across Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Peters' favour. In a landmark ruling, the court overturned the contempt conviction and penalty, and said journalists have special status in court, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when claiming the right to confidentiality.

"The Ontario Court of Appeal has strongly recognized that it is vital that journalists be able to promise confidentiality to sources and if they can't, stories of wrongdoing won't come to light and freedom of the media to gather information will be seriously compromised," the Canadian Newspaper Association said.

For Peters, it was the end of a long, legal nightmare.

"It brought closure to what has been a tremendously difficult time for me both personally and professionally," Peters wrote last week in thanking his newsroom colleagues for their support. "Make no mistake this is a Hamilton Spectator victory and will always be.

"I have said it many times, each of you would have done the exact same thing," Peters wrote. "When we're all gone to the great newsroom in the sky, this ruling may just keep more than a few future journalists out of jail."

Congratulations, Ken.

* * *

In a feature story last Saturday on attempts by the United Steelworkers of America to try to form a union at Dofasco, we published a word that is rarely seen in the newspaper.

It was felt that the word reflected the anger and emotional response that workers, many of whom refused to be named, voiced when speaking to our reporters. In short, they were angry that a union was allowed to enter their workplace and try to organize them. Many were longtime employees.

A number of readers took the time to call me or write to me about us publishing the word. They thought the language was unnecessary and should not be used in our newspaper.

"I am no prude and am not proud to admit that I used it as well on occasion with co-workers while working at Dofasco," one reader wrote.

"It is bad enough that people are using this more and more as part of everyday conversation but the more it is seen, the more it will be accepted as the norm."

There was a debate in the newsroom about its use and in the end I decided it was OK to publish the word in this instance.

In retrospect, to those readers who found our use of the word offensive, I apologize.

David Estok is The Spectator's editor-in-chief. editorfeedback@thespec.com