The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50805
LEGAL REPORT/LITIGATION of journalists (Fédération profession- nelle des journalistes du Québec) — says the few incidents in high-profile cases were limited and sporadic and did not justify a blanket rule limiting the media to certain areas. Quebec media's appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada after years spent first fighting in the lower courts, both of which upheld the new rules as constitutional. In January, the SCC also decided the rules restricting the media were constitutional because they were justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. But while the Quebec media organi- zations technically lost the challenge, in bringing the case to Canada's highest court they have opened the door for media in other provinces to be granted the same freedoms enjoyed in Quebec — access to designated areas of court- houses where they can conduct inter- views and get footage. Christian Leblanc, a partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Montreal, who represented sev- eral Canadian media associations that intervened at the SCC, says the fact the top court recognized the right of cam- eras to be inside courthouses as part of s. 2(b) is very important. "It can open up courthouses in the rest of Canada," says Leblanc. That means the media can cover a courthouse as a public place where there are public interest matters being debated every day. "If that wasn't the case, it would have been very dangerous," he says. "For example, it would have allowed legislation that would have not allowed cameras in the courtroom altogether. . . . It would have also possibly said that the act of taking pictures or videos of somebody is not . . . protected by s. 2(b), which also would have been, I think, very dangerous." In Ontario, journalists have already approached at least one court, the Court of Appeal, about the possibil- ity of setting up a designated area inside Osgoode Hall to conduct interviews. The SCC was unanimous in its deci- sion, with Justice Marie Deschamps writ- ing the opinion in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General). "The fair administration of justice is necessar- ily dependent on maintaining order and decorum in and near courtrooms and on protecting the privacy of litigants appear- ing before the courts, which are measures needed to ensure the serenity of hear- ings," Deschamps wrote. "In my opinion, it was therefore reasonable to expect that the measures would have a positive effect on the maintenance of the fair adminis- tration of justice by fostering the serenity of hearings and decorum and by helping to reduce, as much as possible, the nerv- ousness and anxiety that people naturally feel when called to testify in court." Deschamps noted the reasons behind only allowing journalists in designated areas are based on evidence that "the presence and the conduct of journalists outside courtrooms had a negative effect on the decorum and serenity of hearing." For advocacy groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists, the decision 48 A PRIL 2011 www. CANADIAN Lawyermag.com ntitled-1 1 2/15/11 12:44:19 PM