New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., (1993) 146 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 146 N.R. 161 (SCC);146 NR 161;[1993] ACS no 2;[1993] 1 SCR 319;1993 CanLII 153 (SCC);13 CRR (2d) 1;JE 93-231;[1993] SCJ No 2 (QL);327 APR 181;37 ACWS (3d) 1194;100 DLR (4th) 212;118 NSR (2d) 181

N.B. Broadcasting Co. v. Speaker (1993), 146 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Arthur Donahoe, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Assembly (appellant) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (respondent) and The Honourable Guy Charbonneau, Speaker of the Senate, The Honourable John Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons, The Honourable David Warner, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, The Honourable Jean-Pierre Saintonge, President of the National Assembly of Quebec, The Honourable Denis Rocan, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Manitoba, The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, The Honourable Edward W. Clark, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Prince Edward Island, The Honourable Herman Rolfes, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Saskatchewan, The Honourable David John Carter, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta, The Honourable Thomas Lush, Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Yukon, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of British Columbia and The Canadian Association of Journalists (intervenors)

(22457)

Indexed As: New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

January 21, 1993.

Summary:

M.I.T.V. and the C.B.C. applied for a declaration that s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed them the right to film proceedings of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly; that the Assembly's ban on television cameras (save for limited special occasions) violated their s. 2(b) rights and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The Speaker, on behalf of the House of Assembly, claimed that the Assembly was not subject to suit, that the court was not a court of competent jurisdiction and that the television ban was pursuant to Parliamentary privilege, which prevailed over Charter rights.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 97 N.S.R.(2d) 366; 258 A.P.R. 366, held that (1) the application was properly constituted; (2) the court was a court of competent juris­diction; (3) the right to televise proceedings of the Assembly was protected by the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b); (4) although the presence of television cameras would breach Parliamentary privilege, Char­ter rights prevailed over Parliamentary privi­lege; and (5) the present total ban on televi­sion cameras was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The court stated that the media's right of access could be limited by reasonable rules infringing freedom of expression as little as possible. The Speaker of the House appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, Hallett and Macdonald, JJ.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 102 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 279 A.P.R. 271, allowed the appeal in part. The court affirmed that the total television ban violated s. 2(b) and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. The Speaker of the House appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Cory, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial judge as amended by the Court of Appeal. The court stated that the Charter did not apply to the members of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges, since such privileges enjoyed constitutional status.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850.5

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Restricted access to legislature - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal affirmed that the Nova Scotia House of Assembly's ban on the presence of tele­vision cameras in the Assembly violated s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Free­doms and was not a reasonable limit pre­scribed by law under s. 1 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that since the House of Assembly had the constitutional power (parliamentary privilege) to exclude stran­gers from its chambers, such power was not reviewable by the court and was not subject to the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 2487

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Televising legislature proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850.5 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.4

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Parliamentary privilege - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Canadian legislative bodies possess such inherent privileges as may be necessary to their proper functioning. These privileges are part of the fundamental law of our land, and hence are constitutional. The courts may determine if the privilege claimed is necessary to the capacity of the legislature to function, but have no power to review the rightness or wrongness of a particular decision made pursuant to the privilege." - The court stated that the test of necessity for privilege was a jurisdic­tional test - Once the privilege was neces­sary, its exercise was not subject to review - See paragraphs 22 to 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 8320.4

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Legislative assemblies - The Nova Scotia House of Assembly banned media access to its Chambers - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that the Charter could never apply to a legislative bodies' actions - Section 32(1) of the Charter did not sup­port that conclusion - The court stated that "the tradition of curial deference does not extend to everything a legislative assembly might do, but is firmly attached to certain specific activities of legislative assemblies, i.e., the so-called privileges of such bodies. It follows that the tradition of curial deference to legislative bodies does not support a blanket rule that the Charter cannot apply to any of the actions of a legislative assembly. ... that as a public body it might be capable of impinging on individual freedoms in areas not protected by privilege" - See paragraphs 1 to 9.

Constitutional Law - Topic 110

Definitions - "Constitution of Canada" defined - Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, provided that the Constitution of Canada "includes" the Canada Act, 1982, the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule and any amendments to any Act or order referred to above - It was sub­mitted that unwritten privileges of a legis­lative body could not have a place in the Constitution - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the wording of s. 52(2) does not conclusively prove that this sec­tion is an exhaustive definition of the Canadian Constitution. ... I would be un­willing to restrict the interpretation of that section in such a way as to preclude giving effect to the intention behind the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, thereby denying the recognition to the minimal, but long recognized and essential, inherent privileges of Canadian legislative bodies." - See paragraphs 16 to 20.

Statutes - Topic 2456

Interpretation - Words and phrases - Definition clauses - "Includes" - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 110 ].

Cases Noticed:

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 7].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 13 C.R.R. 287; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, refd to. [para. 7].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 36 C.R.R. 305, refd to. [para. 11].

Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Kielley v. Carson (1842), 4 Moore 63; 13 E.R. 225 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Fielding v. Thomas, [1896] A.C. 600 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Landers v. Woodworth (1878), 2 S.C.R. 158, refd to. [para. 27].

Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1; 112 E.R. 1112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Payson v. Hubert (1904), 34 S.C.R. 400, refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Bound­aries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161, refd to. [para. 51].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 77].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884), 12 Q.B.D. 271, refd to. [para. 93].

Jay v. Topham, 14 East 102; 104 E.R. 540, refd to. [para. 97].

Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney Gen­eral) (1986), 7 B.C.L.R.(2d) 174 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

MacLean v. Nova Scotia (Attorney Gen­eral) (1987), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 296; 189 A.P.R. 296; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 115].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 119].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 127].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 128].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Southam Inc. and Rusnell v. Canada (At­torney General) et al., [1990] 3 F.C. 465; 114 N.R. 255 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

Mercure v. Saskatchewan, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234; 83 N.R. 81; 65 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 158].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 173].

Société Radio-Canada v. Lessard (juge), Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 421; 130 N.R. 321; 43 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 188].

Société Radio-Canada v. Nouveau-Bruns­wick (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 459; 130 N.R. 362; 119 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 300 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 189].

Sigma Delta Chi v. Speaker, Maryland House of Delegates (1973), 310 A.2d 156 (Mary. C.A.), refd to. [para. 193].

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980), 448 U.S. 555 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 193].

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), 408 U.S. 665, refd to. [para. 193].

Houchins v. KQED Inc. (1978), 438 U.S. 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 194].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 75]; sect. 2(b) [paras. 75, 185]; sect. 5, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 32(1)(a) [para. 5]; sect. 32(1)(b) [paras. 5, 75, 166].

Constitution Act, 1867, preamble [para. 74]; sect. 5 [para. 140]; sect. 17 [para. 5]; sect. 18 [para. 78]; sect. 20 [para. 140]; sect. 69, sect. 71 [para. 5]; sect. 88 [para. 74].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 13].

House of Assembly Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 210, sect. 36(1) [para. 76].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin, G.-A., Your Clients and The Charter -- Liberty and Equality (1987), p. 35 [para. 126].

Dawson, R.M., The Government of Canada (5th Ed. 1970), p. 338 [para. 19].

Gibson, D., Distinguishing the Governors from the Governed: The Meaning of "Government" under Section 32(1) of the Charter (1983), 13 Man. L. Rev. 505, generally [para. 126].

Hatsell, John, Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons (3rd Ed. 1796), vol. 1, p. 1 [para. 95].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), vol. 1, pp. 1-6 [para. 114]; 1-7, 1-8 [para. 18]; 4-24 [para. 114].

Maingot, Joseph, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (1982), pp. 2, 3 [para. 26]; 12 [para. 89].

May, Erskine, Treatise on The Law, Privi­leges, Proceedings and Usage of Parlia­ment (21st Ed. 1989), pp. 69, 82 [para. 26]; 84 [para. 36]; 85 [para. 39]; 90, 91 [para. 36]; 145 [para. 105]; 150 [para. 107]; 171, 172, 173 [para. 36].

McLelland, A.A., and B.P. Elman, To Whom Does the Charter Apply? Some Recent Cases on Section 32 (1986), 24 Alta. L. Rev. 361, refd to. [para. 126].

Redlich, Josef, The Procedure of the House of Commons (1908), vol. 1, p. 46 [para. 92].

Shattuck, John F., and F. Byers, An Egali­tarian Interpretation of the First Amend­ment (1981), 16 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 377, generally [para. 196].

Swinton, K., Application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms: Commentary (1982)(Tarnopolsky and Beaudoin, eds.), p. 41 [para. 126].

Tarnopolsky, W.S., and G.-A. Beaudoin, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), p. 41 [para. 126].

Tassé, R., A qui incombe l'obligation de respecter les droits et libertés garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?, in Your Clients and The Char­ter -- Liberty and Equality (1987)(Beaudoin, G.-A., ed.), p. 35 [para. 126].

Counsel:

Graham D. Walker, Q.C., Reinhold M. Endres and Gordon C. Johnson, for the Speaker of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly;

David G. Coles, James L. Connors, Daniel J. Henry and Kenda Murphy, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.;

W. Ian Binnie, Q.C., and Mark J. Freiman, for the Speaker of the Senate;

Robert E. Houston, Q.C., and Alan Riddell, for the Speaker of the House of Commons;

Neil Finkelstein and George Vegh, for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

Raynold Langlois, Q.C., and Luc Huppé, for the Speaker of the National Assem­bly of Quebec;

Robert G. Richards and Deborah Carlson, for the Speakers of the Legislative As­semblies of Manitoba and Saskatchewan;

W.S. Berardino, Q.C., and Mark D. Andrews, for the Speaker of the Legis­lative Assembly of British Columbia;

No one appearing for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island;

Sid M. Tarrabain, Edward J. Leiber and Michael P. Ritter, for the Speakers of the Legislative Assemblies of Alberta, Northwest Territories and Yukon;

B. Gale Welsh, for the Speaker of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland;

David Lepofsky and Lori Sterling, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Frank A.V. Falzon, for the Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia;

Richard G. Dearden, for the Canadian Association of Journalists.

Solicitors of Record:

Graham D. Walker and Reinhold M. Endres, Halifax, N.S., for the appellant;

Boyne, Clarke, Dartmouth, N.S., for the respondent;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ont., for the Speaker of the Senate;

Soloway, Wright, Ottawa, Ont., for the Speaker of the House of Commons;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ont., for the Speaker of the Legislative As­sembly of Ontario;

Langlois, Robert, Montreal, Que., for the President of the National Assembly of Quebec;

MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman, Regina, Sask., for the Speaker of the Legislative Assemblies of Manitoba and Saskatche- wan;

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, B.C., for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia;

Roger B. Langille and Charles P. Thompson, Charlottetown, P.E.I., for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island;

Tarrabain & Co., Edmonton, Alta., for the Speakers of the Legislative Assemblies of Alberta, Northwest Territories and Yukon;

Department of Justice, St. John's, Nfld., for the Speaker of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ont., for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ont., for the Canadian Association of Journalists.

This appeal was heard on March 2-3, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 21, 1993, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 60;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 61 to 63;

Lamer, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 64 to 154;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 155 to 164;

Cory, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 165 to 200.

Stevenson, J., did not participate in the judgment.