SCC Considers Media Access to the Courts

In Canada Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the extent to which the media should have unrestrained access to courthouses and whether the media could broadcast official court audio recordings of proceedings.

The genesis of the case was the passage of rules restricting the areas within certain Quebec courthouses in which reporters could conduct interviews or photograph participants. While not completely barred from undertaking such activities, the reporters were prevented from doing so in areas in which they had previously operated. Moreover, the rules prevented the broadcasting of audio recordings of proceedings, both the official recordings as well as recordings made by the reporters themselves.

The Court analysed the case as a question of a restriction on freedom of expression, of which the freedom of the press is an integral part. Moreover, the Court recognized that media access to the courts is essential to a meaningful “open court” principle, as the vast majority of Canadians obtain their information about, and understanding of, court proceedings from media coverage.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the restrictions, while infringing freedom of expression, were justifiable under the Charter. Notably, the Court found that it was reasonable to preserve a necessary level of decorum and serenity of hearings, which are essential to the proper administration of justice. Apparently, the Court was concerned that the ability (and willingness) of witnesses to testify in proceedings was being compromised by the concern over being photographed or subjected to unsolicited questions and interviews. It was also feared that the broadcast of audio recordings would have a similar detrimental effect, in addition to being overly invasive of the privacy of participants in the process. Thus, the unrestricted media access was felt to be affecting the proceedings themselves, and potentially undermining trial fairness and the quest for truth.

Redaction preferred to sealing says court

The Federal Court of Appeal issued an illustrative order on January 6th in which it rejected a consent motion to seal documents that included the appellant’s SIN number. Instead, it ordered the respondent to redact and re-file. For some reason the Attorney-General filed the documents with SIN numbers for a second time on appeal after the appellant sought protection of the same information in the lower court hearing.

Grace Singer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 3 (CanLII).

Case Report – Ontario Court of Appeal grants media broad access to video evidence

On November 1st, the Ontario Court of Appeal amended an order to give the media greater access to video evidence filed as exhibits in a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown charged four correctional officers with criminal negligence causing death after a prisoner died in custody. The Crown dropped the charges mid-way through the preliminary inquiry and the CBC then sought access to video and audio recordings filed as exhibits. The Court ultimately gave the CBC access, but held that it was only entitled to view and copy portions of video played in court and held that it could view but not copy the portion of the video that was played showing the prisoner’s death.

The Court first held that the Dagenais/Mentuck framework applies to a request for access to exhibits. Regarding the “played in court” limitation, the Court held there was no principled reason to deny access to the whole of an exhibit:

When an exhibit is introduced as evidence to be used without restriction in a judicial proceeding, the entire exhibit becomes a part of the record in the case. While a party may choose to read or play only portions of the exhibit in open court, the trier of fact, whether judge or jury, is not limited to considering only those portions when deciding the case. A party who introduces an exhibit without restriction cannot limit the attention of the trier of fact to only portions of the exhibit that favour that party and that the party chooses to read out or play in open court.

Regarding the restriction on copying portions of video showing the inmate’s death, the Court held there was no evidence adduced to support the restriction.

R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2010 ONCA 726.

Case Report – SCC says no class privilege to protect journalists’ confidential sources in Quebec

On October 22nd, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rejected arguments that unique features of Quebec law justify the recognition of a class privilege to protect against the identification of journalists’ confidential sources. Rather, it held that journalists who claim confidential source privilege in a Quebec civil proceeding must meet the requirements of the Wigmore case-by-case test.

The Court summarized the proper approach as follows:

In summary, to require a journalist to answer questions in a judicial proceeding that may disclose the identity of a confidential source, the requesting party must demonstrate that the questions are relevant. If the questions are irrelevant, that will end the inquiry and there will be no need to consider the issue of journalist-source privilege. However, if the questions are relevant, then the court must go on to consider the four Wigmore factors and determine whether the journalist-source privilege should be recognized in the particular case. At the crucial fourth factor, the court must balance (1) the importance of disclosure to the administration of justice against (2) the public interest in maintaining journalist-source confidentiality. This balancing must be conducted in a context-specific manner, having regard to the particular demand for disclosure at issue. It is for the party seeking to establish the privilege to demonstrate that the interest in maintaining journalist-source confidentiality outweighs the public interest in the disclosure that the law would normally require.

The relevant considerations at this stage of the analysis, when a claim to privilege is made in the context of civil proceedings, include: how central the issue is to the dispute; the stage of the proceedings; whether the journalist is a party to the proceedings; and, perhaps most importantly, whether the information is available through any other means. As discussed earlier, this list is not comprehensive. I will now consider whether a claim of privilege could be established in this case.

The Court also made a notable finding in support of journalists’ right to receive and publish information obtained from whistleblowers.

The Respondent argued in support of a publication ban issued after it complained about leaks from confidential settlement negotiations. The Court stressed the strong public interest maintaining the confidentiality of settlement negotiations, but also held that confidentiality obligations held by the parties to settlement discussions do not bind others, including journalists:

Moreover, there are sound policy reasons for not automatically subjecting journalists to the legal constraints and obligations imposed on their sources. The fact of the matter is that, in order to bring to light stories of broader public importance, sources willing to act as whistleblowers and bring these stories forward may often be required to breach legal obligations in the process. History is riddled with examples. In my view, it would also be a dramatic interference with the work and operations of the news media to require a journalist, at the risk of having a publication ban imposed, to ensure that the source is not providing the information in breach of any legal obligations. A journalist is under no obligation to act as legal adviser to his or her sources of information.

This reasoning led the Court to reject a rule that would “automatically prevent” journalists from publishing information obtained from a source who is in breach of his or her confidentiality obligations. Rather, the Court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck test for limiting freedom of expression and freedom of the press in relation to legal proceedings applies.

Globe and Mail v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 41.

Case Report – Search warrant indexing challenge to proceed without Attorney General as respondent

On July 27th, Moir J. of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court issued a preliminary ruling in a novel Canadian Broadcasting Corporation application in which it is seeking an order requiring the Nova Scotia Provincial Court to index its search warrants based on the open courts principle and the Charter.

In his preliminary ruling, Moir J. held that the Attorney General, as a representative of the executive branch of government, was not a proper respondent because the executive cannot control the judiciary’s records. Though acknowledging that the application “seems to concern a clerical, or mechanical, function,” he held that the matter, in its essence, concerns the sufficiency of access to records in order to satisfy the open courts principle. Moir J. held that the application can continue with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court as a respondent and the Attorney General, as financial supporter of the judiciary, as an affected party.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2010 NSSC 295 (CanLII)

Case Report – NSCA makes privacy-protective orders in youth’s Facebook case

On June 25th, Oland J. of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal made two privacy-protective orders in an appeal of a decision to deny use of the same measures in an application. The application has been brought by a 15-year-old girl who is has taken issue with an unknown individual who created a fake and allegedly defamatory Facebook profile in her name.

In late May, the applicant succeeded in arguing for production of the identity of the individual associated with the fake profile before LeBlanc J. of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. At the same time, LeBlanc J. denied the applicant an order permitting the use of a pseudonym (initials) and denied her a publication ban.

The Court of Appeal granted orders allowing the use of the two privacy protective measures in the appeal of LeBlanc J.’s decision, with the publication ban limited to restricting publication of the words of the Facebook profile. In making these orders, Oland J. held that the order was necessary to protect the applicant’s mental and emotional health, that the orders would be effective in protecting the applicant, that the orders would have a relatively limited impact and that a failure to make the orders would render the appeal moot.

The appeal is currently set down for hearing on December 7th, 2010. Beyond Borders, a children’s rights organization, intends to intervene. The Halifax Herald Limited and Global Television are respondents on the appeal.

A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2010 NSCA 57 (CanLII).

Case Report – BCCA orders media access to “crime boss” video post trial

On April 6th, a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a trial judge erred by denying the media post-trial access to a videotape exhibit adduced in a criminal trial. It ordered the tape to be released with measures to be taken to protect the identities of undercover RCMP officers and others who where shown on the tape.

The video showed a confession that the RCMP extracted by use of a scenario in which an accused is asked to confess past crimes to a “crime boss.” It showed three undercover officers and identified them by their real first names. The video was shown in open court subject to a publication ban that restricted identifying the officers. Shortly after the accused was convicted, the applicants requested access to the videotape and a transcript of the same, but the trial judge denied access on the strength of an affidavit that established a likelihood of harm to the undercover officers.

Madam Justice Newbury held that the trial judge erred by balancing the benefit to be gained by releasing a video in a substantially modified form (to protect the officers’ identities) against the safety and privacy interests at stake, in effect reading out the “necessity” requirement for restrictive order endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dagenais/Mentuck. Mr. Justice Hall concurred and Mr. Justice Chiasson dissented.

Note that Madam Justice Newbury justified a permanent restriction on the publication of the officers’ identities by reference to the “perpetual availability of information on the internet.”

Global BC, A Division of Canwest Media Inc. v. British Columbia, 2010 BCCA 169 (CanLII).

Case Report – BCCA rejects privacy claim by criminal defendants

On March 3rd, the British Columbia Court of Appeal directed that factums filed on a criminal appeal be provided to a non-party.

While the outcome is not surprising, this is a decision in which an appellant court comments on a criminal defendant’s right to privacy. Chief Justice Finch rejected an argument made by the defendants whose order of acquittal was under appeal. They argued that access should not be granted because the factums contained references to unproven allegations of fact. The Chief Justice responded as follows:

It is common ground among all counsel with knowledge of same, that there is nothing contained in any of the factums that was not said or disclosed in Provincial Court in proceedings that were open to the public. There was no order banning publication of any of the information or material at issue on the voir dire.

It necessarily follows in my view that there is no principled basis upon which disclosure of this information to a non-party could now be refused. Everything that is to be learned from reading the factums filed in Court is already in the public domain by reason of the proceedings in Provincial Court. It has not been suggested that publication of this information would in any way prejudice the fair trial interests of the respondents should the Crown’s appeal succeed. Whatever privacy interests or protection of innocence interests may be at risk have already been overtaken by the open proceedings in Provincial Court.

The matter was before the Court because a British Columbia Court of Appeal criminal practice directive limits routine access to factums and, instead, requires that a request be made to the Chief Justice.

R. v. Bacon, 2010 BCCA 102.

Case Report – Court lacks jurisdiction to grant access to materials not filed

On December 31st, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to order access to records that were referenced in a joint sentencing submission but not entered as exhibits.

The CBC applied for an order against the RCMP, who possessed audio and video recordings made in the course of a high profile murder investigation. The CBC relied on section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and argued access was necessary to assess the joint sentencing submission. The Court held that, given the records had not been filed in Court, the proper forum for such a request was the Federal Court under the authority of the Access to Information Act.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 NSSC 400.

Case Report – Court says administrative tribunal can publish personal information

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench issued a decision on March 9th that is significant to administrative tribunals and others with an interest in access to records of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. The Court held that the Saskatchewan Automobile Injury Appeal Commission violates neither the Saskatchewan Health Information Protection Act, the Saskatchewan Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act nor the Charter by publishing decisions that include the personal information of claimants.

The Commission hears appeals of adjuster decisions under the Saskatchewan Automobile Insurance Act. It is required to hold open hearings (subject to its own discretion to order otherwise), required to provide written reasons and required to keep records it considers necessary for the proper conduct of its business. Given the nature of its appeals, Commission reasons often include a description of evidence related to claimants’ diagnoses, prognoses and treatment programs.

The applicant moved for relief in Court after the Commission denied her request to forgo publication of its reasons for deciding her claim or, alternatively, redact her name, age, occupation and other identifying details from its reasons. She argued that disclosure was prohibited by Saskatchewan HIPA, Saskatchewan FIPPA and the Charter.

The Court found that the Commission’s adjudicative mandate necessarily implies the power to publish its reasons in the internet and then rejected all three of the applicant’s arguments.

Its most significant finding was on Saskatchewan FIPPA, where it held that the disclosure of personal information in reasons was permissible because the Commission’s written reasons are excluded from the Act as “material that is a matter of public record.” It explained:

I accept all of these three definitions of “public record”. The Commission is a public adjudicative body required to make and keep its decisions. Section 92 of the Regulations states that Commission hearings are open to the public unless the Commission orders otherwise. Its decisions are open to the public even without publishing them on the web. Further, s. 95(1) and 95(2)(d) places an obligation on the Commission to compile a record of a hearing that was held, which consists in part of the written decision of the appeal commission. It is common ground that the decision is on file at the Commission and accessible to the public. The decision of the Commission contains information prepared by a government institution which has a duty to inquire into the issues associated with the hearing and record its findings permanently.

Further, it seems illogical that members of the public could sit at the hearing and listen to all of the evidence but not have access to the decision of the Commission. The written decision is the last piece of the hearing process. Public access to decisions made by the Commission is important to assist individuals in presenting their claims and understanding the decision-making process of the Commission and to further the principle of public access to adjudicative bodies.

The Court also held that publication would otherwise be permitted under the provision in Saskatchewan FIPPA that authorizes non-consensual disclosures of personal information, in part because the personal information in reasons for decisions is collected for a purpose consistent to the purpose of publishing such information.

The Court’s treatment of the applicant’s Charter argument is also worth note. The Court dismissed a section 7 “security of the person” claim, stating “Section 7 does not protect an individual who is suffering from the ordinary anxieties that a person of reasonable sensibility would suffer as a result of being involved in an open adjudicative process.” In the alternative, the Court held that the publication of reasons did not violate the principles of fundamental justice in light of the open courts principle, which it stressed applies equally to administrative tribunals.

This decision must be understood in the context of the longstanding dialogue between the Saskatchewan IPC and the Commission about the publication of its decisions, and is remarkable in that it conflicts so strongly with the position taken by the IPC in a 2005 investigation report (here) and a paper it published in early 2009 (here). The IPC (who did not participate in this court case) made a number of recommendations in 2005 that the Commission initially refused to follow, though it eventually came into line by issuing an internet posting policy effective June 1, 2008. The Commission’s new policy contemplates publication of reasons with personal identifiers and identifying information removed, while also granting the public access to physical copies of unredacted reasons.

Germain v. Automobile Injury Appeal Commission, 2009 SKQB 106 (CanLII).