R. v. Bryan (P.C.) et al., (2007) 237 B.C.A.C. 33 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: March 15, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 237 B.C.A.C. 33 (SCC);2007 SCC 12;217 CCC (3d) 97;EYB 2007-116393;[2007] 1 SCR 527;276 DLR (4th) 513;72 WCB (2d) 362;237 BCAC 33;153 CRR (2d) 316;359 NR 1;[2007] 5 WWR 1;[2007] SCJ No 12 (QL);JE 2007-530;45 CR (6th) 102;72 BCLR (4th) 199

R. v. Bryan (P.C.) (2007), 237 B.C.A.C. 33 (SCC);

    392 W.A.C. 33

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: [2007] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.053

Paul Charles Bryan (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CTV Inc., TVA Group Inc., Rogers Broadcasting Limited, CHUM Limited, Sun Media Corporation, Sun Media (Toronto) Corporation, Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, CanWest MediaWorks Inc., CanWest Media Works Publications Inc., Canoe Inc. and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)

(31052; 2007 SCC 12; 2007 CSC 12)

Indexed As: R. v. Bryan (P.C.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

March 15, 2007.

Summary:

Staggered poll closings in Canada resulted in election results in Atlantic Canada (11% of total ridings) being available before polls closed in Western Canada. Section 329 of the Canada Evidence Act banned publication of these results until the polls closed in the rest of Canada. An accused charged under s. 329 challenged the constitutionality of s. 329, submitting that it violated freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) and was not saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

The British Columbia Provincial Court rejected the constitutional challenge and subsequently found the accused guilty and fined him $1,000. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2003] B.C.T.C. 1499, allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal. Section 329 limited freedom of expression and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Saunders, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2005), 213 B.C.A.C. 52; 352 W.A.C. 52, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction. Although s. 329 violated s. 2(b) of the Charter, it was saved under s. 1 as a reasonable limit prescribed by law. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel and Abella, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. Section 329 limited freedom of expression but was saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1855.3

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Transmitting election results - Staggered poll closings in Canada resulted in elections results in Atlantic Canada (11% of total ridings) being available before polls closed in Western Canada - Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act banned publication of election results until the polls closed in all of Canada - Section 329 admittedly limited freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that s. 329 was a reasonable limit prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) notwithstanding that there was no direct evidence that releasing Atlantic Canada election results before polls closed in Western Canada adversely affected voting behaviour in the west - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 329 was saved under s. 1 - The object or purpose of s. 329, informational equality among voters and public confidence in the electoral system,  was "pressing and substantial" - The proportionality test was met where the ban was rationally connected to that objective; minimally impaired freedom of expression (2.5 hour delay in reporting results); and the ban's salutary effects outweighed its deleterious effects.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - At issue was whether a provision of the Canada Elections Act, which admittedly limited freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the evidentiary onus on the federal Crown to establish that the provision was saved by s. 1 where the harm which Parliament sought to remedy was almost impossible to measure - The court stated that in circumstances where there was a paucity of social science evidence available the court could rely on a reasonable apprehension of harm and that logic and reason assisted by some social science evidence was sufficient proof of the harm sought to be remedied - See paragraphs 19 to 23, 102.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1855.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8590

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1855.3 ].

Elections - Topic 6010

Offences - General - Transmitting election results - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1855.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827; 320 N.R. 49; 348 A.R. 201; 321 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 33, appld. [para. 2].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 20].

Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; 218 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 27].

Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; 201 N.R. 1; 178 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 454 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 40].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 101].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 124].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, sect. 128(1) [para. 88]; sect. 329 [para. 89].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd Sess., 35th Parliament (November 26, 1996), p. 6723 [para. 127].

Canada, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, Reforming Electoral Democracy: Final Report (Lortie Commission Report) (1991), vol. 2, pp. 83 [paras. 18, 25]; 84 [paras. 36, 41, 44]; 85 [paras. 45, 46, 88].

Choudhry, Sujit, So What Is the Real Legacy of Oakes? Two Decades of Proportionality Analysis under the Canadian Charter's Section 1 (2006), 34 S.C.L.R.(2d) 501, p. 524 [para. 29].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1997 Looseleaf Ed.) (2000 Update, Release 1), vol. 2, p. 35-31 [para. 39].

Lortie Commission Report - see Canada, Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, Reforming Electoral Democracy: Final Report.

Counsel:

Donald J. Jordan, Q.C., and Rodney W. Sieg, for the appellant;

Andrew I. Nathanson and Brook Greenberg, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Graham Garton, Q.C., and Sean Gaudet, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Brent Olthuis and Daniel Henry, for the intervenors, Canadian Broadcasting Corp., CTV Inc., TVA Group Inc., Rogers Broadcasting Ltd., CHUM Ltd., Sun Media Corp., Sun Media (Toronto) Corp., Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, CanWest MediaWorks Inc., CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. and Canoe Inc.;

Mahmud Jamal and Colin Feasby, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Taylor Jordan Chafetz, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

Arvay Finlay, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors, Canadian Broadcasting Corp., CTV Inc., TVA Group Inc., Rogers Broadcasting Ltd., CHUM Ltd., Sun Media Corp., Sun Media (Toronto) Corp., Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, CanWest MediaWorks Inc., CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. and Canoe Inc.;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on October 16, 2006, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 15, 2007, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Bastarache, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 53;

Fish, J. - see paragraphs 54 to 82;

Deschamps, Charron and Rothstein, JJ. - see paragraph 83;

Abella, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie and LeBel, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 84 to 134.