Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2011) 411 N.R. 75 (SCC)
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | January 28, 2011 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (2011), 411 N.R. 75 (SCC);2011 SCC 3;328 DLR (4th) 651;264 CCC (3d) 311;[2011] EXP 380;411 NR 75;[2011] 1 SCR 65;JE 2011-207;[2011] SCJ No 3 (QL) |
CBC v. Can. (A.G.) (2011), 411 N.R. 75 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
.........................
Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. JA.040
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen and Stéphan Dufour (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Alberta, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)
(32987; 2011 SCC 3; 2011 CSC 3)
Indexed As: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
January 28, 2011.
Summary:
The accused's video-recorded statement to police was admitted at trial as an exhibit. The media was allowed to film the statement as it was played back in court, but was prohibited from broadcasting their recording of the statement. The CBC applied for permission to broadcast the exhibit. The trial judge dismissed the motion based on the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division, rule 8.A of which provided that "any broadcasting of a recording of a hearing is prohibited". CBC appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Since exhibits were distinct from the hearing, they were not governed by the Rules of Practice. Access to exhibits was a corollary to the open court principle. Absent statutory provisions, the trial judge had a discretion to determine how exhibits could be used to ensure an orderly trial. Whether that discretionary decision infringed freedom of the press (Charter, s. 2(b)) required applying the Dagenais/ Mentuck analysis. The accused was acquitted and had a particular vulnerability (intellectual disability). The court stated that "there are cases in which the protection of social values must prevail over openness. In my view, a situation requiring the protection of vulnerable individuals, especially after they have been acquitted, is one such case".
Civil Rights - Topic 2486
Freedom of the press - Limitations - Court proceedings - Publication bans - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2494 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 2494
Freedom of the press - Limitations - Access to exhibits (incl. broadcast ban) - The accused's video-recorded statement to police was admitted at trial as an exhibit - The media was allowed to film the statement as it was played back in court, but was prohibited from broadcasting their recording of the statement - The CBC applied for permission to broadcast the exhibit - The trial judge dismissed the motion based on the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division, rule 8.A of which provided that "any broadcasting of a recording of a hearing is prohibited" - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed CBC's appeal - Since exhibits were distinct from the hearing, they were not governed by the Rules of Practice - Access to exhibits was a corollary to the open court principle - Absent statutory provisions, the trial judge had a discretion to determine how exhibits could be used to ensure an orderly trial - Whether that discretionary decision infringed freedom of the press (Charter, s. 2(b)) required applying the Dagenais/Mentuck analysis - The accused was acquitted and had a particular vulnerability (intellectual disability) - The court stated that "there are cases in which the protection of social values must prevail over openness. In my view, a situation requiring the protection of vulnerable individuals, especially after they have been acquitted, is one such case".
Courts - Topic 1443
Administration - Documents filed by parties (incl. videotapes) - Public right of access - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2494].
Criminal Law - Topic 4492
Procedure - Trial - Restrictions on publications affecting fairness of trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2494 ].
Cases Noticed:
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2011), 411 N.R. 23; 2011 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 1].
Société Radio-Canada v. Québec (Procureur général), [2008] R.J.Q. 2303; 2008 QCCA 1910, refd to. [para. 3].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 10].
Vickery v. Prothonotary, Supreme Court (N.S.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 671; 124 N.R. 95; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 283 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 11].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, appld. [para. 11].
R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, appld. [para. 11].
MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609, refd to. [para. 12].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. R. et al. (2010), 271 O.A.C. 7; 2010 ONCA 726, refd to. [para. 12].
Société Radio-Canada v. Bérubé, [2005] R.J.Q. 1183 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. Giroux, 2005 CanLII 12396 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].
Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332; 322 N.R. 161; 199 B.C.A.C. 1; 326 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 13].
Vancouver Sun et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 253; 368 N.R. 112; 247 B.C.A.C. 1; 409 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 13].
Named Person v. Vancouver Sun - see Vancouver Sun et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. v. Canada et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 721; 402 N.R. 206; 263 O.A.C. 4; 2010 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 13].
Statutes Noticed:
Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Quebec, Criminal Division, S.I./2002-46, rule 8, rule 8.A [para. 7].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Béliveau, Pierre, and Vauclair, Martin, Traité général de preuve et de procédure pénales (15th Ed. 2008), pp. 499, 500 [para. 12].
Counsel:
Sylvie Gadoury, Geneviève McSween and Anne-Julie Perrault, for the appellant;
Dominique A. Jobin and Denis Dionne, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen, and the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;
Pascale F. Tremblay and Michel Boudreault, for the respondent, Stéphan Dufour;
Pierre Salois and Claude Joyal, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Gaétan Migneault, for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;
Donald B. Padget, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Alberta;
Simon V. Potter and Michael A. Feder, for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;
Mahmud Jamal and Jason MacLean, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Solicitors of Record:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen, and the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;
Boudreault Tourangeau Tremblay, Chicoutimi, Quebec, for the respondent, Stéphan Dufour;
Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;
Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Alberta;
McCarthy Tetrault, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
This appeal was heard on March 16, 2010, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 28, 2011, Deschamps, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba,
...43 B.C.L.R. (6th) 330; Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 65; CTV Television Inc. v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region) (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 18; Vancouver Sun (Re), 200......
-
R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58
...[1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; Bingeman v. McLaughlin, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 548; R. v. Gervais (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 533; Taylor v. The Queen (1876), 1 S.C.R. 65; Royal Bank of Canada v. Concrete Column Clamps (1961) Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 1038; R. v. Puskas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1207; R. v. Ali, [1980] 1 S.C.R.......
-
Publication Bans
...[2012] 3 SCR 726, 2012 SCC 72 AB v Bragg Communications Inc , [2012] 2 SCR 567, 2012 SCC 46 Canadian Broadcasting Corp v The Queen , [2011] 1 SCR 65, 2011 SCC 3 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Canada , [2010] 1 SCR 721, 2010 SCC 21 Named Person v Vancouver Sun , [2007] 3 SCR 253, 2007......
-
Table of cases
...General), [1991] 3 SCR 459, 67 CCC (3d) 544, [1991] SCJ No 88 .............................. 198 Canadian Broadcasting Corp v the Queen, 2011 SCC 3 .................................... 553 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al v Morrison, 2017 MBCA 36, [2017] MJ No 95 ..........................
-
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba,
...43 B.C.L.R. (6th) 330; Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 65; CTV Television Inc. v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region) (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 18; Vancouver Sun (Re), 200......
-
R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58
...[1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; Bingeman v. McLaughlin, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 548; R. v. Gervais (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 533; Taylor v. The Queen (1876), 1 S.C.R. 65; Royal Bank of Canada v. Concrete Column Clamps (1961) Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 1038; R. v. Puskas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1207; R. v. Ali, [1980] 1 S.C.R.......
-
Société Radio-Canada c. Canada (Procureur général),
...[1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326,(1989), 103 A.R. 321; Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43,[2004] 2 S.C.R. 332; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v.The Queen, 2011 SCC 3, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 65; Singer v.Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 3, 414 N.R. 246;Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, 2007 SCC 43, [2007]3 S.C.R. 25......
-
R. v. Dineley (S.), (2012) 436 N.R. 59 (SCC)
...46 W.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 55]. Bingeman v. McLaughlin, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 548; 16 N.R. 55, refd to. [para. 63]. R. v. Taylor (1876), 1 S.C.R. 65, refd to. [para. Royal Bank of Canada v. Concrete Column Clamps (1961) Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 1038, refd to. [para. 72]. R. v. Puskas (J.F.); R. v.......
-
Interlocutory Injunctions: Specific Areas
...Broadcasting Corp. , [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 and R. v. Mentuck , 2001 SCC 76. See, most recently, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada , 2011 SCC 3. 67 See B.W. International Inc. v. Thomson Canada Ltd. (1996), 137 D.L.R. (4th) 398 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.). On either test, the plaintiff could not ......
-
Table of cases
...1 SCR 19, 2011 SCC 2 ................................................................. 68, 192 Canadian Broadcasting Corp v The Queen, [2011] 1 SCR 65, 2011 SCC 3 ................................................................................................... 192 Canadian Civil Liberties......
-
The Trial Process
...v Canadian Broadcasting Corp , 2018 SCC 5 at para 18. 350 Vancouver Sun (Re) , above note 339. 351 Canadian Broadcasting Corp v the Queen , 2011 SCC 3. See, for example, Esseghaier , above note 341. 352 Section 486(1). The section also permits exclusion of the public “to prevent injury to i......
-
Table of Cases
...57 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada, 2011 SCC 3 ......................................... 78 Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers v. B.C. Air Lines Ltd. (1970), 14 D.L.R. (3d) 691, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 39, [1970] B.C.J. No. 492 (S.C.), rev’d (1970), [1971] 2 W.W.R. ......