Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp

Last updated
Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: January 24, 1994
Judgment: December 8, 1994
Full case nameCanadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board of Canada v. Lucien Dagenais, Léopold Monette, Joseph Dugas and Robert Radford
Citations [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 1994 CanLII 39 (S.C.C.); (1994), 120 D.L.R. (4th) 12; (1994), 94 C.C.C. (3d) 289; (1994), 25 C.R.R. (2d) 1; (1994), 34 C.R. (4th) 269; (1994), 76 O.A.C. 81
Prior historyJudgment for the respondents in the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Court membership
Reasons given
MajorityLamer C.J., joined by Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
ConcurrenceMcLachlin J.
DissentGonthier J.
DissentLa Forest J.
DissentL'Heureux-Dubé J.

Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that judges have a common law discretionary authority to impose publication bans on information revealed in a criminal trial. The judge, however, must weigh competing rights, such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial, to mizzen the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has a right to appeal a decision of a publication ban.

Contents

Background

Four former and present members of the Christian Brothers, a Catholic order, were charged with sexual abuse of young boys while they were teachers at an Ontario Catholic school. During their trial the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced a dramatic mini-series, based on another sexual abuse scandal at Mount Cashel Orphanage, named The Boys of St. Vincent , and it was scheduled to be broadcast nationwide in the first week of December, 1992. The defence brought an application requesting the jury be charged before the airing of the show or else sequestered over the weekend of the show's airing. The judge declined and instead merely directed the jury to avoid watching the show.

The day before the airing the defence applied for an injunction to restrain the CBC from broadcasting the show and from publishing any information relating to the show until the last of the four trials were over. The injunction was granted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the injunction but limited it only to Ontario and Montreal, and overturned the ban on any publicity of the show. The CBC and the National Film Board of Canada appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Opinion of the Court

The majority of the Court held that the publication ban was in violation of the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Aftermath

The Court set out a test for a publication ban to be granted, and this has since become known as the Dagenais/Mentuck test: [1]

… A publication ban should only be ordered when:

(a) Such a ban is necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and

(b) The salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of those affected by the ban. …

Smith J stated in a 2014 judgment that: [2]

The Supreme Court of Canada has closely guarded the open court concept over the years and in the last 20 years has narrowed the test for the use of discretionary orders to ban the publication of evidence in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp, and R v Mentuck, known as the "Dagenais-Mentuck" test. The "Dagenais-Mentuck" test requires the party opposing media access to demonstrate that the order (for the ban) is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice and that the salutary effects of the order sought outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and public.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd</i> Landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down a mandatory Sunday closing law

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the federal Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.

<i>R v Sharpe</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court balanced the societal interest to regulate child pornography against the right to freedom of expression possessed by the defendants under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; holding, that while general prohibition of child pornography was constitutional, there were some limits imposed by the Charter. The decision overturned a ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

<i>R v Keegstra</i> Supreme Court of Canada case on wilful promotion of hatred

R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 is a freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld the Criminal Code provision prohibiting the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Andrews.

<i>M v H</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

M v H [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of same-sex couples to equal treatment under the Constitution of Canada.

<i>Prostitution Reference</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, commonly known as the Prostitution Reference, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Manitoba's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.

<i>Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd, 2002 SCC 8, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on secondary picketing. The Court held that at common law, secondary picketing is legal so long as there is no criminal or tortious conduct.

<i>Ramsden v Peterborough (City of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ramsden v Peterborough , [1993] 2 SCR 1084 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down a bylaw prohibiting all postering on public property on the grounds that it violated freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Bryan</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Bryan 2007 SCC 12 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and Canadian federal elections. The Court upheld a law that prevented the publicizing of election results from some ridings before the polls closed in others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

The Landlord and Tenant Board is an adjudicative tribunal operating in the province of Ontario that provides dispute resolution of landlord and tenant matters under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. It is one of the 13 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario.

The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.

<i>R (Canada) v Adams</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Justice Sopinka wrote for a unanimous court in this appeal from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on a case in which a Criminal Code section 486 publication ban was overturned by the trial judge, Justice Feehan, after he had found the primary witnesses for both sides of a sexual assault trial to be unreliable.

<i>CBC v New Brunswick AG</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick [1996] 3 SCR 480 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the open court principle.

<i>R v O.N.E.</i> Canadian legal case concerning publication ban

R v O.N.E. was a legal case heard in 2001 before the Supreme Court of Canada. It was an appeal against a ban on publication of details of the police investigation of a murder case. The appeal was allowed.

<i>Vancouver Sun</i> (Re) Supreme Court of Canada case

Re Vancouver Sun is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case regarding the open court principle, freedom of the press and publication bans. The open court principle is the "right of public access to the courts",

<i>Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Ontario</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Fish J. wrote a unanimous verdict for the Court, rejecting Crown contentions that the investigative procedure ought to be withheld from public view, in this case of insalubrious slaughter of cattle at the Aylmer Meat Packers plant in Toronto. In fact, the scandal that ensued had a part in changing the leadership of the province.

<i>Sierra Club of Canada v Canada (Minister of Finance)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sierra Club of Canada v Canada is a Supreme Court of Canada decision, which was reached in 2002, when a Non-Governmental Organization sought judicial review of the federal government’s decision to provide financial assistance to a Crown corporation. The Crown corporation requested a confidentiality order in respect of certain documents, and the NGO contested the request. The proper analytical approach to be applied to exercise of judicial discretion where a litigant seeks confidentiality order is now known as the Sierra Club test. The deleterious effects of granting a confidentiality order include a negative effect on the open court principle were noted by Iacobucci J. but they were outweighed by the salutary effects of the grant.

References