Ad IDEM / CMLA - Recent changes [en]

Category:Cases

2012-05-17T22:19:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 17 May 2012
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 178:		Line 178:
	\| date=May 25, 2010		\| date=May 25, 2010
	\| description=The British Columbia Supreme Court applied the new libel defence of Responsible Communication in a non-media case. On this occasion, the defence is unsuccessful.		\| description=The British Columbia Supreme Court applied the new libel defence of Responsible Communication in a non-media case. On this occasion, the defence is unsuccessful.
		+	}}
		+
		+	{{Case
		+	\| title=R. v. McClintic 2010 ONSC 2944
		+	\| date=May 19, 2010
		+	\| description=The Ontario Superior court granted a temporary publication ban on information that mentioned or referred "in any way either directly or indirectly to anything stated directly or indirectly in court about Michael Thomas Christopher Stephen Rafferty" at the trial of Terri-Lynne Ruth McClintic. The ban is no longer in effect as the trial of Mr. Rafferty has been completed and a verdict has been rendered.
	}}		}}

R. v. McClintic 2010 ONSC 2944

2012-05-17T22:14:26Z

New page

==Note ==
The Ontario Superior court granted a temporary publication ban on information that mentioned or referred "in any way either directly or indirectly to anything stated directly or indirectly in court about Michael Thomas Christopher Stephen Rafferty" at the trial of Terri-Lynne Ruth McClintic. The ban is no longer in effect as the trial of Mr. Rafferty has been completed and a verdict has been rendered.

==Decision Summary==
Ms. McClintic and the co-accused, Mr. Rafferty, were charged with first degree murder. Ms. McClintic's trial took place prior to Mr. Rafferty's preliminary hearing. Ms. McClintic pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the first-degree murder of Victoria Elizabeth Stafford, and based on an agreed Statement of Facts, was sentenced to life in prison. Mr. Rafferty was seeking the publication ban on the basis that his fair trial rights would be adversely affected.

A media coalition, represented by Iain MacKinnon was granted intervenor status and argued against the granting of a publication ban.

Justice McDermid applied the two-part ''Dagenais/Mentuck'' test and, with regards to the first part of the test, states at para. 27:
<blockquote>
...with respect to the evidence about the circumstances giving rise to and surrounding the murder of Victoria Elizabeth Stafford, I believe a publication ban is
necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of Mr. Rafferty's trial.
</blockquote>
McDermid J. then states, at para. 29, that "the mere fact of extensive pretrial coverage is not sufficient in and of itself to justify a ban". However, he goes on to state at para. 35:
<blockquote>
Some of the information that was adduced before me on April 30, 2010, namely the circumstances surrounding the murder of Victoria Elizabeth Stafford, will be the subject of evidence led at Mr. Rafferty's preliminary inquiry and trial. I find that if that information were published in advance of his trial there would indeed be a substantial risk to the fairness of his trial and that there are no reasonably available alternative measures that would prevent the risk.
</blockquote>
As to the second part of the test, whether the salutary effect of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of the media, McDermid J. finds, at para. 39:
<blockquote>
...the salutary effects of the temporary publication ban I am about to impose outweigh the deleterious effect to the public's right to know and the media's right to free expression for the following reasons:</blockquote>
<blockquote>• The ban is temporary.</blockquote>
<blockquote>• It withholds from the public only matters that in my opinion are likely to create an indelible and prejudicial impression in the minds of members of the public that is unlikely to be dispelled by judicial instruction or alternative measures.</blockquote>
<blockquote>• The ban permits the publication and broadcasting of the huge majority of what was contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts upon which the guilty plea was founded.</blockquote>
<blockquote>• It preserves Mr. Rafferty's constitutional right to a fair trial.
</blockquote>

==References==
See:[[Media:R. v. McClintic.pdf |R. v. McClintic, 2010 ONSC 2944]]

[[Category:Cases]]
[[Category:Court_and_Tribunal_Openness_Cases]]
[[Category:Publication_Ban_Cases]]

File:R. v. McClintic.pdf

2012-05-17T16:37:42Z

uploaded "[[File:R. v. McClintic.pdf]]"

Stone, Danielle

2012-05-17T14:22:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 17 May 2012
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−
−
	{{Biography Box		{{Biography Box
−
	\| name= Stone, Danielle		\| name= Stone, Danielle
−		+	\| image=
		+	\| address=Blaney McMurtry LLP<br/>
		+	2 Queen Street East<br/>
		+	Toronto, Ontario, <br/>Canada M5C 3G5
		+	\| telephone=(416) 597-4898
		+	\| email=dstone@blaney.com
		+	\| website=http://www.blaney.com/lawyers/danielle-stone
	}}		}}

		+	[[Category:Ontario Media Lawyers]]
	[[Category:Media Lawyers]]		[[Category:Media Lawyers]]
		+
		+	Danielle is a civil litigation associate at Blaney McMurtry LLP, focusing on defamation, privacy, and access to information law. She was also an investigative journalist at the CBC for seven years.

R. v. Qahwash, 2011 ONSC 2398

2012-05-16T18:17:21Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:17, 16 May 2012
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	==Note==
	+	WARNING: This ruling is subject to a publication ban that restricts its publication for purposes other than legal reporting or use in the course of legal proceedings, and further publication is prohibited unless the judge rules otherwise.

	+	In April 2011, the Waterloo Record made submissions opposing the application of the Crown for an order defining the scope of s. 648 of the ''Criminal Code of Canada''.
	+
	+	Madam Justice Walters
	+
	+
	+
	+	==Decision Summary==
	+
	+
	+
	+	==References==
	+	See:[[Media:R. v. Qahwash.pdf \| R. v. Qahwash]]
	+
	+	[[Category: Cases]]
	+	[[Category:Court_and_Tribunal_Openness_Cases]]
	+	[[Category:Publication_Ban_Cases]]

File:R. v. Qahwash.pdf

2012-05-16T18:04:42Z

uploaded "[[File:R. v. Qahwash.pdf]]"

New Developments Module

2012-05-14T17:55:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 14 May 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\| title=[[Canwest Publishing Inc. v. Wilson]]		\| title=[[Canwest Publishing Inc. v. Wilson]]
	\| description=The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that a journalist who is being sued for defamation is entitled to protect the identity of her confidential source. In overturning the lower court decision, the court found that the identity of the confidential source was not relevant to whether Canwest or the journalist had acted maliciously.		\| description=The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that a journalist who is being sued for defamation is entitled to protect the identity of her confidential source. In overturning the lower court decision, the court found that the identity of the confidential source was not relevant to whether Canwest or the journalist had acted maliciously.
		+	}}
		+
		+	\| {{Development
		+	\| date=April 24, 2012
		+	\| title=[[R. v. Dingwell]]
		+	\| description=The CBC and Guardian newspaper applied to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island to have access to audio recordings of 911 calls, video and audio tapes of three statements made by the accused and a police video of the crime scene, all of which were being used in evidence in the second degree murder trial of the accused.
		+	After applying the ''Dagenais-Mentuck'' test Justice Mitchell ordered copies of the 911 calls and the accused's video-taped statements to police to be released to the media. Mitchell J. placed restrictions on the use of the crime scene videotape, citing privacy interests of the innocent.
	}}		}}

Category:Cases

2012-05-14T17:51:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 14 May 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\| date=April 27,2012		\| date=April 27,2012
	\| description=The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that a journalist who is being sued for defamation is entitled to protect the identity of her confidential source. In overturning the lower court decision, the court found that the identity of the confidential source was not relevant to whether Canwest or the journalist had acted maliciously.		\| description=The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that a journalist who is being sued for defamation is entitled to protect the identity of her confidential source. In overturning the lower court decision, the court found that the identity of the confidential source was not relevant to whether Canwest or the journalist had acted maliciously.
		+	}}
		+
		+	{{Case
		+	\| title=R. v. Dingwell
		+	\| date=April 24,2012
		+	\| description=The CBC and Guardian newspaper applied to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island to have access to audio recordings of 911 calls, video and audio tapes of three statements made by the accused and a police video of the crime scene, all of which were being used in evidence in the second degree murder trial of the accused.
		+	After applying the ''Dagenais-Mentuck'' test Justice Mitchell ordered copies of the 911 calls and the accused's video-taped statements to police to be released to the media. Mitchell J. placed restrictions on the use of the crime scene videotape, citing privacy interests of the innocent.
	}}		}}

R. v. Dingwell

2012-05-14T17:47:13Z

New page

==Note==
The CBC and Guardian newspaper applied to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island to have access to audio recordings of 911 calls, video and audio tapes of three statements made by the accused and a police video of the crime scene, all of which were being used in evidence in the second degree murder trial of the accused.
After applying the ''Dagenais-Mentuck'' test Justice Mitchell ordered copies of the 911 calls and the accused's video-taped statements to police to be released to the media. Mitchell J. placed restrictions on the use of the crime scene videotape, citing privacy interests of the innocent.

==Decision Summary==
Justice Mitchell cites the Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen,'' 2011 S.C.C. 3, as the basis for determining access to exhibits.
In referring to the 911 calls, Mitchell J. states at para. 18:
<blockquote>I can see no danger to the proper administration of justice in releasing these tapes to the media. No one’s rights appear to be adversely affected by its release. Copies of those tapes shall be released to the media.
</blockquote>
With respect to releasing the police video of the crime scene to the media, Mitchell J. discusses the privacy interests of the other residents of the home where the crime took place, as well as the privacy interests of the next door neighbours. Mitchell J., in para. 21, orders the release of the video, but restricts its use:
<blockquote>
1. Only those portions of the video which show the crime scene; to wit, front yard, area around the cars, front steps, front entry, landing by the front stairs, front hallway, kitchen, dining room and living room may be broadcast/published.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. For greater certainty, the video showing the second floor, the back yard and side yard are not to be broadcast.
</blockquote>
On the issue of the release of the video statements made by the accused, Mitchell J. raises questions regarding the deleterious effect such a release might have on future cases, even though the Crown did not raise any concerns about their release:
<blockquote>
[25] I cannot help but wonder what effect publication of this statement will have on future cases. Will not defence counsel advise their clients of their right to remain silent, how to exercise that right, and the fact that should they fail to exercise the right to remain silent, they’re likely to end up on television for all to see? Will it be more difficult for police to get statements and hence more difficult to solve crimes? Will this adversely affect the administration of justice?
</blockquote>
Mitchell J. concludes, at para. 30, with instructions on how the media should make future requests for trial exhibits:
<blockquote>
Should the media in the future wish copies of trial exhibits, in my view, theproper course would be to approach the Court, Crown and Defence. The Crown
should be able to advise the Court whether there are other interests at stake. If none, and the Court can see no impediment to a media release, an exhibit will be released once it is tendered. There may well be occasions where the Court will put conditions on the release and in fact, this is one of those cases where the videotape was released on condition that the media show only those parts of the tape which were relevant to
the crime and did not breach the privacy interests of the neighbours.
</blockquote>

==References==
[[media: R. v. Dingwell.pdf |R. v. Dingwell, 2012 PESC 14]]

[[Category:Cases]]
[[Category:Court and Tribunal Openness Cases]]

File:R. v. Dingwell.pdf

2012-05-14T15:48:03Z

uploaded a new version of "[[File:R. v. Dingwell.pdf]]"

File:R. v. Dingwell.pdf

2012-05-14T15:08:02Z

uploaded "[[File:R. v. Dingwell.pdf]]"

U.K. Defamation Act

2012-05-11T16:07:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 11 May 2012
Line 39:		Line 39:

	==Links to Additional information==		==Links to Additional information==
		+
	[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]		[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]
		+
		+	[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/en/13005en.htm Explanatory Notes to Revised Draft UK Defamation Act]

	[http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/draft-defamation-bill-consultation.pdf Draft Defamation Act 2011]		[http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/draft-defamation-bill-consultation.pdf Draft Defamation Act 2011]

Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012

2012-05-11T16:00:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 11 May 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:

	[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]		[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]
		+
		+	[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/en/13005en.htm Explanatory Notes to Revised Draft UK Defamation Act]

New Developments Module

2012-05-11T15:53:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 11 May 2012
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\| date=May 10, 2012		\| date=May 10, 2012
	\| title=[[Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]		\| title=[[Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]
−	\| description=After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.	+	\| description=After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee) in the U.K., the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.
	}}		}}

Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012

2012-05-11T15:52:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 11 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==		==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==
−	After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.	+	After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee) in the U.K., the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.

	==Links to Additional information==		==Links to Additional information==

	[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]		[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]

New Developments Module

2012-05-11T15:51:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 11 May 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:
	==New Developments==		==New Developments==
	{{New Development List		{{New Development List
		+
		+	\| {{Development
		+	\| date=May 10, 2012
		+	\| title=[[Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]
		+	\| description=After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.
		+	}}

	\| {{Development		\| {{Development

U.K. Defamation Act

2012-05-11T15:48:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 11 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==		==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==
	After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.		After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.
−
−	~~[[Category:Proposed Legislation]]~~

	==Questions==		==Questions==

Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012

2012-05-11T15:47:51Z

New page

==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==
After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.

==Links to Additional information==

[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf | Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]

U.K. Defamation Act

2012-05-11T15:45:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 11 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==		==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==
	After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.		After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.
		+
		+	[[Category:Proposed Legislation]]

	==Questions==		==Questions==

Category:Proposed Legislation

2012-05-11T15:42:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 11 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	We are also tracking legislation of interest or concern on our [[Legislation Watch]] page.		We are also tracking legislation of interest or concern on our [[Legislation Watch]] page.

		+	{{Document
		+	\| date=May 10, 2012
		+	\| title=Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012
		+	\| description=After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.
		+	}}
	{{Document		{{Document
	\| date=May 31, 2011		\| date=May 31, 2011

U.K. Defamation Act

2012-05-11T15:36:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 11 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−		+	==Revisions to the Draft Defamation Act May 2012==
		+	After recommendations from the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (the Mahwhinney Committee), the revised draft of the Act now contains a defence in s. 5 for website operators with respect to user generated content.
		+
	==Questions==		==Questions==
	The following questions were published by the U.K.'s Joint Committee on April 8 2011.		The following questions were published by the U.K.'s Joint Committee on April 8 2011.
Line 37:		Line 39:

	==Links to Additional information==		==Links to Additional information==
−	[http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/draft-defamation-bill-consultation.pdf Draft Defamation Act]	+	[[Media: Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf \| Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012]]
		+
		+	[http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/draft-defamation-bill-consultation.pdf Draft Defamation Act 2011]

	[http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-defamation-bill1/ Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill]		[http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-defamation-bill1/ Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill]

File:Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf

2012-05-11T15:20:14Z

uploaded "[[File:Revised Draft Defamation Act 2012.pdf]]"

U.K. Defamation Act

2012-05-11T15:04:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 11 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−

	==Questions==		==Questions==
−	The following questions were published by the U.K.'s Joint Committee on April 8.	+	The following questions were published by the U.K.'s Joint Committee on April 8 2011.
	[http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-defamation-bill1/news/call-for-evidence/ Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill]		[http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-defamation-bill1/news/call-for-evidence/ Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill]
	===Clause 1: definition of defamation; a "substantial harm" test===		===Clause 1: definition of defamation; a "substantial harm" test===