Main Page
From Ad IDEM / CMLA
Welcome to the Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association Website
Welcome to the new and improved Ad IDEM / Canadian Media Lawyers Association (CMLA) website. The 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 distinguished invited guests for two days of presentations and stimulating discussion of current media law issues. The 2009 Conference will be held on November 6 and 7, 2009, in Montreal. For registration and hotel information, see Upcoming Events as the dates approach. In the past year, our Website Committee has been busy updating this website to provide more information and flexibility to be a better resource for our members and the public. Please have a look at it and send us your comments. If you are a member, you have access to our valuable “members only “ area. We welcome contributions to the website.
Other objectives of the organization for 2009 include more active involvement in legislative and policy change and continuing intervention in ongoing cases of importance. In 2008 and 2009 alone, the CMLA has intervened in five important cases in the Supreme Court of Canada. We are also working to develop stronger relationships with other like-minded groups to promote free expression in Canada.
We welcome new members, and your comments.
Events
2009 Conference
November 6 and 7, 2009
Montreal, Quebec
For registration and hotel information, see Upcoming Events as the dates approach.
New Developments
| Justice Reporter | ||
| A new Justice Reporter is born... thanks to Tracey Tyler and Tony Wong.
| ||
| January 26, 2009 | Toronto Star Newspapers v. Canada | |
| The Ontario Court of Appeal has now ruled in the media's constitutional challenge of the mandatory publication ban at bail hearings.
The decision was 3:2, with the majority (written by Feldman JA, concurred in by Laskin, Simmons JJA) declaring that Criminal Code s. 517 (the publication ban section for bail hearings) should be read down by adding after "shall on application by the accused" the following words "where and for so long as the charge(s) may be tried by a jury". The dissent, written by Justice Rosenberg, and concurred in by Juriansz JA, would have declared the words "and shall on application by the accused" in s.517 to be of no force and effect, wiping out the mandatory ban completely. They would have suspended the invalidity for 12 months. This decision contrasts with the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which held recently in R v White that the section was constitional as written.
| ||
| June 27, 2008 | WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson | |
| The Supreme Court of Canada has reinvigorated the Fair Comment defence. In the process it overturned its own 1979 decision in Cherneskey v Armadale, so that media organizations can publish the opinions of others, without having to agree with those opinions themselves. Justice Binnie, on behalf of the seven member majority, made it clear that the traditional test for the defence does not include a requirement that a court must find "fairness" in the opinion or the person offering it. If the opinion could honestly be held, fairness is in the ear of the beholder. Oh, and Rafe Mair won. Unanimously.
| ||
| 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.
| ||
| Older Developments... | ||
|
|
