Difference between revisions of "New Developments Module"


Jump to: navigation, search
(New Developments)
m (New Developments)
Line 6: Line 6:
| date=October 19, 2011
| date=October 19, 2011
| title=Supreme Court releases [[Crookes v. Newton, SCC]] decision today.
| title=Supreme Court releases [[Crookes v. Newton, SCC]] decision today.
| description=The Court is unanimous in its dismissal of the appeal. The majority describes hyperlinks as "references", fundamentally different from publication. Two concurring decisions, however disagree on whether mere linking ''could'' give rise to liability for defamation.
| description=The Court is unanimous in its dismissal of the appeal. The majority describes hyperlinks as "references", fundamentally different from publication.

Revision as of 09:52, 19 October 2011

New Developments

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.

January 10, 2011   Lougheed v. Wilson, 2010 BCSC 1871
    This decision by the BC Supreme Court applies an extremely narrow interpretation of Globe and Mail (the "Polygone" decision by the Supreme Court). The dangerous circular reasoning at the heart of this decision says that in a defamation case, the motive of the source providing information to the journalist is relevant. To discover the source's motive, the Court requires his or her identity. This decision will be appealed.

Personal tools