Main Page
From Ad IDEM / CMLA
Welcome to the Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association Website
The Canadian Media Lawyers Association (Ad IDEM) educates and advocates on issues of openness and free expression in media. In addition to our annual conference, where most of Canada's media lawyers keep abreast of developments in media law, we have now intervened eleven times in Supreme Court of Canada appeals ranging from defamation to openness of the courts, and have made submissions on draft legislation affecting media. We have organized events bringing together different groups with an interest in free expression.
During the 15 years since the organization began around a boardoom table in Toronto, it has grown to the point that its annual conference draws in the range of 100 attendees, representing media lawyers from across the country. Many of our members have been at the leading edge of the most important media law developments since the introduction of the Charter of Rights in Canada. The resources we provide on this website, including case summaries and articles, are valuable to lawyers as well as journalists and students.
As a way of raising awareness of openness and expression issues, we encourage everyone to explore this site, follow our twitter feed @CanMediaLawyers, and if you are a lawyer who principally defends media, contact us to become a member where you can benefit from our Members Area resources and conference. The next one is November 2-3, 2012 in Toronto.
Dan Burnett
CMLA President
New Sections
- AdIDEM News Feeds: Topical news picks as well as alerts about Ad IDEM activities. Follow Adidem on:Twitter.:
Events
2012 Conference
November, 2012
Toronto, ON
Please click for more details.
2011 Conference
November 4 and 5, 2011
Montreal, Quebec
Please click for more details.
New Developments
| October 19, 2011 | Birth of a new Tort? Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32. | |
|---|---|---|
| Ontario Court of Appeal recognizes "intrusion upon seclusion" as tortious conduct. Brief comments indicate Court's awareness of possible section 2(b) implications.
| ||
| October 19, 2011 | Supreme Court releases Crookes v. Newton, SCC decision today. | |
| The Court is unanimous in its dismissal of the appeal. The majority describes hyperlinks as "references", fundamentally different from publication.
| ||
| October 13, 2011 | R. v. Kossyrine and Vorobiov | |
| An Ontario Court refused to grant a publication ban on a co-accused's guilty plea in a first degree murder trial. The deciding upheld the importance of media's role in reporting court activity to the public and made some important observations about the relationship between the media an juries. "the accused are entitled to an impartial jury not an uninformed jury.".
| ||
| May 31, 2011 | AdIDEM Submission on UK Libel Law | |
| The U.K. is in the process of amending its Defamation Act. The Board of Directors of the Canadian Media Lawyers Association has prepared a submission to the law amendment committee. See: Submission to UK Joint Committee on Draft Defamation Bill
For more details see this entry in our section: U.K. Defamation Act.
| ||
| March 28, 2011 | Reference re Constitutionality of s. 293 of Criminal Code of Canada | |
| Webcast and television news coverage of the closing submissions in this case begins, and is scheduled to last for two weeks.
For Background, see: Electronic Public Access to Court.
| ||
| March 4, 2011 | A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2011 NSCA 26 | |
| A young person started a defamation claim using initials and simultaneously applied for a publication ban. CMLA members including Nancy Rubin and Al Parish, acting on behalf of media clients successfully intervened and the Nova Scotia court firmly rejects the proposition that a defamation plaintiff (even a young person) can start an action anonymously.
| ||
| February 17, 2010 | Supreme Court maintains limits on class-based defamation claims. See Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia, 2011SCC9. | |
| The Supreme Court overturns a class action award by Quebec's Superior Court of damages to a non-profit organization representing all members of the class. The Court held that no reasonable person would have taken the impugned comments seriously or believed that they applied to all members of the class.
| ||
| February 11, 2011 | Ad IDEM comments on proposed amendments to CRTC Regulations | |
| Ad IDEM joined over 2000 other concerned parties who have made submissions to the CTRC regarding proposed amendments to its regulations. The proposed changes affect: the prohibition on broadcasting false or misleading news; the prohibition on broadcasting programming that contains obscene or profane language; and the submission of information by licensees to the Commission.
| ||
| January 28, 2011 | Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) | |
| The good news? Media activity within the courthouse is protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter. The bad news? Justice Deschamps, on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada, upheld the constitutional validity of a total ban on broadcast of official audio recordings of court proceedings. The rationale was that permitting broadcast of them would interfere with the purpose of making them, i.e. to preserve the record, by potentially influencing witness anxiety and behaviour, and, as a result, affecting the record itself.
The Supreme Court also upheld a restriction on the freedom of movement of media cameras within court corridors. In Quebec, cameras must stay in corridor locations designated by the court, where journalists can record comings and goings, and can invite and conduct consensual interviews with witnesses, lawyers or the public. The silver lining: Media in other provinces can now argue that they should not have to live with the existing total bans on camera and microphone access to court corridors there. Note: The ban on media camera access to court proceedings in Quebec was not challenged by the media or addressed by the court, and remains an open question.
| ||
| January 28, 2011 | Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada. | |
| Broadcasting exhibits is not the same issue as broadcasting from court. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court finding that they were related, and confirmed that the test to be used when considering the broadcast of exhibits is the Dagenais/Mentuck test, where the onus is on the party wanting to restrict broadcast to demonstrate that it's necessary. The court added considerations to that test related to the impact on the trial of any co-accused and the accused personally, including in this case his vulnerability as an intellectually disabled person, and his acquittal. In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and denied Radio-Canada and TVA the right to broadcast the accused's police interview exhibit on the grounds that given other developments in his case the original access argument had become moot.
| ||
| All Developments | ||
|
|
