Welcome to the Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association Website

Ad IDEM / Canadian Media Lawyers Association (CMLA) is an organization of lawyers who represent media in promoting freedom of expression - hence its original and alternate name: Ad IDEM, or, Advocates In Defence of Expression in the Media.

After 12 years of informal existence, Ad IDEM incorporated in 2007. It is now governed by a Board of Directors and has adopted a committee structure to more effectively fulfill its mission. The members of the Board and Committees are listed on this website.

Ad IDEM holds an annual conference every November - bringing together most of the members and a few distinguished invited guests for two days of presentations and stimulating discussion of current media law issues. The 2008 Conference will be held on November 7 and 8, 2008, in Ottawa. For registration and hotel information, see Upcoming Events.

Other objectives for 2008 include a revamping of our website, more active involvement in legislative and policy change and continuing intervention in ongoing cases of importance. Over the next several months, as our website is updated, we will be providing you with more information on our activities.

Please browse our website. We welcome new members, and your comments.

Paul Schabas President

New Developments:

March 17, 2008	St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) (In the matter of the citation of Ken Peters for contempt)
	The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Ken Peters, a reporter with the Hamilton Spectator, setting aside his citation for contempt for refusing to answer questions that would identify his confidential source. Justice Sharpe, writing for the court, reviewed the importance of confidential sources to journalists, limited the effect of the Moysa decision, and incorporated Dagenais/Charter principles into the Wigmore analysis of privilege and the court's consideration of contempt. Contempt is a last resort. Here, the trial judge used it too quickly, and applied it when it was not necessary to do justice. This judgment sets out important principles, and does so very well. The only consideration limiting the usefulness of this decision in future is that in the end, the source was not protected. The pressure on the journalist resulted in the source revealing himself.

February 29, 2008	R v National Post
	The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Crown, and reinstated the search warrant and assistance order against the National Post, ordering its editor-in-chief to produce to the Crown a document received by reporter Andrew McIntosh, along with the envelope it was sent in. Doing so risks revealing the identity of a person the court accepted was McIntosh’s confidential source. The police want to analyze fingerprints on the documents, and saliva on the stamp on the envelope, with a view to furthering their investigation of an alleged forgery, designed to affect the reputation of former Prime Minister Chretien.

November 13, 2007	Cusson v Quan et al (Ottawa Citizen) and Barager
	Earth-shattering or simply incremental change to Ontario's libel law... it depends on your perspective. Justice Sharpe, on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed recent libel developments around the world and Canada, and incorporated a new made-in-Canada Reynolds/Jameel "public interest responsible journalism" defence into our law. The “chill” from the traditional Canadian common law of defamation is gone, replaced by the "thrill" of publishing stories that journalists investigate and have "every reason to believe" are true, on matters “the public has a legitimate interest in hearing”.

October 11, 2007	Named Person v. Vancouver Sun
	For the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada moved away from the Dagenais test in a media attempt to open up an in-camera hearing. Media lawyers had won the right to see information about a police informer who was the subject of an extradition hearing, so that they could review the informer's status and argue for more openness. The Supreme Court held that informer privilege is an absolute bar, if it applies, and a judge has no discretion to reveal any information which would reveal the informer's identity. The Dagenais test only applies directly to discretionary orders, not orders that are mandatory by common law or statute. As for police informers, the court provided general guidelines to judges and parties on both process and principle for consideration of openness for non-identifying information.

June 28, 2007	R v. Baltovich (Finkle Subpoena)
	In 1992, Robert Baltovich was convicted of murdering Elizabeth Bain. In 1998, journalist Derek Finkle wrote a detailed 800-page book about the case called "No Claim to Mercy" that was critical of the police investigation and cast doubt on Baltovich's guilt. In 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed Baltovich's conviction and ordered a re-trial. A year before the re-trial was scheduled to begin, the Crown issued a witness subpoena for production of evidence to Finkle. Justice Watt of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice quashed the subpoena and found that the Crown did not meet the required standard that Finkle was likely to give material evidence at the re-trial. He held that the subpoena amounted to a fishing expedition under a colourable licence issued without authority and stated that, "fishing season is closed".

June 21, 2007	London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc.
	The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the importance of the open meeting requirement in municipal law. An interim control by-law was struck down because it was debated in closed session, and rubber stamped in an 8 minute public hearing. Charron J., speaking on behalf of the Court, noted that "Municipal law was changed to require that municipal governments hold meetings that are open to the public, in order to imbue municipal governments with a robust democratic legitimacy. The democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions does not spring solely from periodic elections, but also from a decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law. When a municipal government improperly acts with secrecy, this undermines the democratic legitimacy of its decision, and such decisions, even when intra vires, are less worthy of deference.

June 5, 2007	R. v. White
	A new day has dawned. The bail hearing ban set out in Section 517 of the Criminal Code has been re-written by Justice Brooker of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in response to an application by CBC, the Edmonton Journal, Bell Globemedia (the Globe and Mail, CTV) and the Edmonton Sun. The ban will now not be available in cases that won't involve a jury, and, unless the Code is amended within 12 months, the ban won't be automatic on the application of an accused... it will be a matter of judicial discretion, if sought.

March 15, 2007	R v Bryan
	It’s official. Ignorance is bliss… at least according to the majority of Supreme Court of Canada judges ruling in the Bryan case. On federal election night, Canadians who want to ignore election news from polling locations further East than they live now have a constitutionally approved right to vote in ignorance of that news, and to require fellow Canadians who’d rather know what’s going on, almost one in three of us, not to learn that news from radio, television or the internet.