R. v. CHBC Television, (1999) 118 B.C.A.C. 267 (CA)

• Judge: Esson, Hollinrake and Ryan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 16, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 267 (CA);1999 BCCA 72

R. v. CHBC TV (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 267 (CA);

   192 W.A.C. 267

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.020

Regina (respondent) v. CHBC Television, a division of WIC Television Ltd. (appellant)

(CA024128; 1999 BCCA 72)

Indexed As: R. v. CHBC Television

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Esson, Hollinrake and Ryan, JJ.A.

February 8, 1999.

Summary:

The accused television station appealed its conviction for contempt of court. See [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. I41.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

Contempt - Topic 510

What constitutes contempt - Criminal contempt - During weekend adjournment of a first degree murder trial, a television station during the news broadcast (1) pic­tures showing the accused, in handcuffs and ankle restraints, being escorted to a sheriff's vehicle and (2) a spoken report that the accused was transferred from a local lock-up to another facility for the weekend, which might mean a delay in beginning trial that Monday - Reference was made to the accused being the "prime suspect" and to a "Crime Stoppers" video­tape showing a portion of the crime scene, which was in issue - There was no express publication ban - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the actus reus of criminal contempt was not established - There was no real risk of prejudice - See paragraphs 15 to 47.

Contempt - Topic 510

What constitutes contempt - Criminal contempt - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the mens rea required for the offence of criminal contempt - See paragraphs 48 to 75.

Contempt - Topic 1107

What constitutes contempt - Publications - Contempt of court - [See first Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Contempt - Topic 1107

What constitutes contempt - Publications - Contempt of court - The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the essential elements of publication contempt - See paragraph 63.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Froese and British Columbia Televi­sion Broadcasting Systems Ltd. (No. 3) (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 315 (B.C.C.A.), affing. (1979), 50 C.C.C.(2d) 119 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. CHEK-TV Ltd. (1987), 33 C.C.C.(3d) 24 (B.C.C.A.), affing. (1985), 23 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. McArthur (1996), 34 O.T.C. 370 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Scozzafava (1997), 46 O.T.C. 52 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Dobson (1985), 7 O.A.C. 145; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Regan (1997), 159 D.L.R.(4th) 350 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Chronicle-Herald et al. and The Queen, Re - see R. v. Regan.

R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al. (1998), 54 O.T.C. 167; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 46].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Perkins (1980), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346; 23 C.R.(4th) 189; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 632; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 50].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attor­ney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 1 Alta. L.R.(3d) 129; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Hill, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 395 (B.C. Co. Ct.), affd. [1977] 1 W.W.R. 341; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 60 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 19 C.R.(4th) 169; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 169; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 19, consd. [para. 57].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 161, consd. [para. 60].

R. v. Cohn (1984), 4 O.A.C. 293; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (C.A.), consd. [para. 61].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al. (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 1; 69 W.A.C. 1; 90 B.C.L.R.(2d) 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Edge, [1988] 4 W.W.R. 163 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 62].

R. v. Bowes Publishers Ltd. et al. (1995), 171 A.R. 55; 30 Alta. L.R.(3d) 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].

Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Groupe Quebecor Inc. et al. (1987), 47 Man.R.(2d) 187; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 648 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Canadian Judicial Council, Some Guidelines on the Use of Contempt Powers (1996), pp. 5-6 [para. 54]; 46 [para 55].

Miller, Jeffrey, The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), pp. 34 [para. 67]; 104 [para. 72]; 123 [para. 68].

Counsel:

Daniel W. Burnett, for the appellant;

Peter Ewert, Q.C., and Roger Cutler, for the respondent, Crown.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 1998, before Esson, Hollinrake and Ryan, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Esson, J.A., on February 8, 1999.