R. v. Edmonton Sun et al.,

• Judge: McFadyen, Hunt and Berger, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Citation: 2003 ABCA 3,(2003), 320 A.R. 217 (CA)
• Date: 12 April 2001

R. v. Edmonton Sun (2003), 320 A.R. 217 (CA);

    288 W.A.C. 217

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.092

The Edmonton Sun and The Calgary Sun, Divisions of Sun Media Corporation (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Calgary Herald Group Inc. and The Canadian Press (interveners)

(0003-0226-A; 2003 ABCA 3)

Indexed As: R. v. Edmonton Sun et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McFadyen, Hunt and Berger, JJ.A.

January 7, 2003.

Summary:

McCafferty was charged with second degree murder in the death of his common law spouse's four year old son. Two newspapers published articles that disclosed that McCafferty had previously been convicted of assaulting the victim. The Crown charged the two newspapers with contempt sub judice (publication contempt), alleging that the articles were calculated to interfere with the course of justice by prejudicing McCafferty's right to a fair and impartial trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the two newspapers of contempt. The court imposed a fine of $5,000. The newspapers appealed the conviction and sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal and set aside the convictions.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.4

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Contempt of court - The appellants argued that the traditional common law test for publication contempt contravened freedom of expression and freedom of the press (Charter, s. 2(b)) - They proposed a new test which accorded with the reasoning in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (S.C.C.) - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the proposed definition suggested by the appellants - The court held that the Dagenais test, which dealt with publication bans, could not be incorporated into the definition of contempt - The court stated, inter alia, that the traditional test could not be reformulated so as to avoid the restriction on freedom of expression and the press without destroying the court's power to punish for publication contempt - Therefore, the court had to determine if the limit could be justified by s. 1 of the Charter - The court held that where a publication constituted a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice, the contempt power was justified under s. 1 - The contempt power protected the rule of law, the administration of justice and the Charter rights to a fair trial under ss. 7 and 11(d) - Further, the proportionality test was satisfied - See paragraphs 16 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 2493

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Contempt of court - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.4].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.4].

Contempt - Topic 1105

What constitutes contempt - Publications - Pretrial publicity prejudicing fair trial - McCafferty was charged with second degree murder in the death of his common law spouse's four year old son - Soon after McCafferty's arrest, two newspapers published articles that disclosed that McCafferty had previously been convicted of assaulting the victim - The newspapers were charged with contempt sub judice (publication contempt) - The trial judge convicted the newspapers - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the newspapers' appeal - The publication of the articles did not create a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice - The court noted, inter alia, that the circulation of the newspapers was limited in the area from which potential jury members would be drawn - There would probably be a significant delay between the publication and McCafferty's trial - Further, McCafferty's prior conviction would have been admissible in any trial - See paragraphs 64 to 66.

Contempt - Topic 1105

What constitutes contempt - Publications - Pretrial publicity prejudicing fair trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.4].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, consd. [paras. 2, 85].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 16, 96].

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, refd to. [para. 18].

Poje v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 21].

Duncan, Re, [1958] S.C.R. 41, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B. 36, refd to. [para. 21].

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. 22].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Interwest Publications Ltd. (1990), 108 A.R. 173; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 114 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 23, 87].

R. v. Bowes Publishers Ltd. et al. (1995), 171 A.R. 55; 30 Alta. L.R.(3d) 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Froese and British Columbia Television Broadcasting System (No. 3) (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 315 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. CHEK-TV Ltd. (1987), 33 C.C.C.(3d) 24 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. CHBC Television (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 267; 192 W.A.C. 267; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. McKeown (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.) (2001), 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 104].

R. v. O.N.E. (2001), 279 N.R. 187; 160 B.C.A.C. 161; 261 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 93].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 203 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 97].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 31, 100].

Keegstra v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1986), 77 A.R. 249; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

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, refd to. [paras. 42, 100].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655, refd to. [para. 58].

Murphy and Southam Press Ltd., Re (1972), 30 D.L.R.(3d) 355 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Merz (H.J.) (1999), 127 O.A.C. 1; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Glennon (1992), 173 C.L.R. 592, refd to. [para. 90].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 100].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 104].

Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1974] A.C. 273; [1973] 3 All E.R. 54 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 110].

Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd.; Truth and Sportsman Ltd., Re (1937), 37 S.R.(N.S.W.) 242, refd to. [para. 112].

Victoria v. Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation (1982), 152 C.L.R. 25, refd to. [para. 114].

Hinch v. Attorney General (Vict.) (1987), 164 C.L.R. 15, refd to. [para. 114].

Attorney General v. M.G.N. Ltd., [1997] 1 All E.R. 456, refd to. [para. 121].

Gisborne Herald Co. v. Solicitor General, [1995] 3 N.Z.L.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Attorney General v. English, [1982] 2 All E.R. 903; [1983] 1 A.C. 116, refd to. [para. 121].

Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd., [1992] 3 All E.R. 38; [1992] 1 W.L.R. 874, refd to. [para. 121].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anisman, P., and Linden, A.M., The Media, the Court and the Charter (1986), p. 214 [para. 91].

Borrie and Lowe, The Law of Contempt (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 115 [para. 108]; 116, 117 [para. 113].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada, p. 737 [para. 57].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2000) (Looseleaf Ed.), p. 40-37 [para. 91].

International Commission of Jurists, Contempt of Court (1959), p. 11 [para. 108].

Miller, C.J., Contempt of Court (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 228 to 229 [para. 109]; 233 [para. 118].

Miller, J., The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), p. 101 [para. 90].

Counsel:

B. Zalmanowitz, for the appellant;

E.O. Yereniuk, for the respondent;

G.S. Watson, for the interveners.

This appeal was heard on April 12, 2001, before, McFadyen, Hunt and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On January 7, 2003, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following decisions were filed:

McFadyen, J.A. (Hunt, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 68;

Berger, J.A. - see paragraphs 69 to 127.