Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Date: 01 September 1988
• Citation: (1988), 87 N.R. 163 (SCC),32 OAC 259,65 CR (3d) 50,87 NR 163,65 OR (2d) 637,43 CCC (3d) 24,[1988] CarswellOnt 1023,52 DLR (4th) 690,1988 CanLII 52 (SCC),38 CRR 72,JE 88-1134,5 WCB (2d) 6,[1988] 2 SCR 122,[1988] SCJ No 67 (QL)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)

Cdn. Newspapers Co. v. Can. (1988), 87 N.R. 163 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

R. v. Canadian Newspapers Company Limited and the Attorney General for Ontario and the Attorney General of Quebec and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Women's College Hospital Sexual Assault Care Centre Team, Metropolitan Toronto Special Committee on Child Abuse, Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children, Broadside Communications, Ltd. and Womenhealthsharing, Inc.

(19298)

Indexed As: Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

September 1, 1988.

Summary:

At the trial of an accused for the sexual assault of his wife the trial judge granted the wife's application under s. 442(3) of the Criminal Code for an order that her identity not be published. The newspaper applied for a declaration that s. 442(3) violated the freedom of the press guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario High Court ruled that s. 442(3) violated s. 2(b) of the Charter, but was valid as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter. The newspaper appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 7 O.A.C. 161; 49 O.R.(2d) 557; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 642; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 44 C.R.(3d) 97; 14 C.R.R. 276, agreed that s. 442(3) violated s. 2(b), but that all but the mandatory aspect of s. 442(3) was saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that s. 442(3) was saved by s. 1 of the Charter. Further, s. 442(3) did not deny an accused the right to a public hearing under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 2444

Freedom of the press - Lawful abridgment of - Trial publicity - The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 442(3), provided that on the application of the complainant in sexual offence cases the court must order that the complainant's name not be published - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 442(3) violated the freedom of the press guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter, but was valid as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 1 to 23, 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 3149

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Public hearing - Abridgment of - The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 442(3), provided that on the application of the complainant in sexual offence cases the court must order that the complainant's name not be published - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 442(3) did not deny the accused his right to a public hearing - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2444 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 4490

Trials - Publicity - Restrictions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2444 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 4490

Trials - Publicity - Restrictions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3149 above].

Cases Noticed:

MacIntyre v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609 appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, appld. [para. 15].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193, appld. [para. 15].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd.

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 14]; sect. 2(b) [para. 11]; sect. 11(d) [para. 24].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 442(3) [para. 1].

Counsel:

J.E. Thompson, for the appellant Crown;

Sheila R. Block and James C. Tory, for the respondent;

David Lepofsky, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean Bouchard and France Bonsaint, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Elizabeth J. Shilton Lennon and Helena P. Orton, for the interveners Women's Legal Education and Action Fund et al.

Solicitors of Record:

Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

The Department of Justice, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Cavaluzzo, Hayes & Lennon, Toronto, Ontario, for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund et al.

This case was heard on March 2, 1988, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 1, 1988, Lamer, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages. Estey, J., took no part in the judgment.