R v Bryan

Last updated
R v Bryan
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 16, 2006
Judgment: March 15, 2007
Full case namePaul Charles Bryan v. Her Majesty the Queen and Attorney General of Canada
Citations 2007 SCC 12, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 527
Docket No.31052 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for the Crown and the Attorney General of Canada in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Holding
Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act is constitutional and justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein
Reasons given
MajorityBastarache J. (paras. 1-53)
ConcurrenceFish J. (paras. 54-82)
ConcurrenceDeschamps, Charron and Rothstein JJ. (para. 83)
DissentAbella J. (paras. 84-134), joined by McLachlin C.J., and Binnie and LeBel JJ.

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.

Contents

The law was later repealed by a vote in parliament, taking effect June 18 2014 [2] [3] prior to the 2015 Canadian federal election, citing the increased use of social media. [4]

Background

Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act outlawed publishing election results from other ridings in constituencies where polls were still open. However, in the federal election in 2000, one Paul Charles Bryan published results from Atlantic Canada on the Internet despite being told not to by the authorities. [5] Bryan was charged before the Provincial Court of British Columbia, but fought the charges as unconstitutional under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression and freedom of association. Bryan's victory before the British Columbia Supreme Court meant that voters in British Columbia legally learned of election results in other ridings during the federal election in 2004. [6] However, Bryan lost his case before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Stephen Harper, who later became prime minister, labelled Elections Canada "jackasses" and tried to raise money for Bryan. [6] The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also supported Bryan, hoping to "make election night a bigger event that[ sic ] it already is." [6]

Decision

The majority of the Court produced three opinions upholding the law, one by Justice Bastarache and one by Justice Fish, with the remaining three judges writing a brief opinion of agreement.

Bastarache

Justice Bastarache pointed to the Supreme Court case Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), which had also considered the Canada Elections Act. The Harper decision stated that the Court should be deferential to the government with respect to election legislation, [7] and that the Court should consider the context of the law, citing Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998) to say that this involves considering why someone guarded by the law is at risk and why someone would perceive oneself to be at risk. [8] In this case, Bastarache found the purpose of section 329 was to promote the idea of each voter in Canada knowing as much as each other, as it may be unfair if some voters already know election results in other ridings while earlier voters do not know of any outcomes. This idea of section 329 would also build public trust in elections. [9] Bastarache felt that voters aware of some results may base their own choices on that knowledge, [10] and Bastarache recognized without demand for much proof that it is a principle of democracy that a person cannot base their choice in voting on special knowledge. [11] In this case, Bastarache did not really emphasize the idea that Canadian voters from Western Canada were at risk of being swayed by special knowledge, saying that Canadian voters should be trusted to have some "maturity and intelligence." [12] Instead, Bastarache said what was at stake was the view that Canadian elections are fair, and pointed to polls to reinforce this idea. [13]

On the topic of freedom of expression, Bastarache questioned the value of spreading election results, and said that there was no evidence this could outweigh the principles of democracy of section 329. [14] On whether a violation of freedom of expression could be justified under section 1 of the Charter, Bastarache found that fairness in elections should be a sufficient objective of the law, [15] as should building public trust in elections. [16] Additionally, banning the publishing of election results was needed to achieve this objective, and Parliament considered this to be the best method. [17]

Fish

Justice Fish states election results from other ridings should not be published in a riding before its polls close so voters can vote without knowing how other voters have voted. [18] Fish says section 329 of the Canada Elections Act does violate section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights for a short while, [19] but section 329 is constitutional because it "relates to a pressing and substantial concern in a free and democratic society", [20] thus satisfying one part of section 1 of the Charter [20] which can limit the rights of Canadians. Section 329 is also constitutional because according to Fish, the court is dealing with "an important element of Canada’s electoral system" [21] so section 1 of the Charter of Rights can be invoked. Fish refers to both a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing publication [21] [22] and a 2005 joint Decima Research-Carleton University Poll; [23] both state Canadians do not want to know election results before their polls close. Fish believes even if there is no harm in releasing results early, the information release would create a "perception" of unfairness, which in itself is a problem. [24]

Dissent

Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel and Abella JJ: The s 329 publication ban is an excessive response to an insufficiently proven harm and a violation of s 2(b) of the Charter that cannot be justified under s 1. The government's s 1 justification falters fatally in its submission that the benefits of the limitation on the freedom of expression are proportional to its harmful effects. Here, when the harm at which the blackout period in s 329 is aimed is considered in the context of staggered hours, there is only speculative and unpersuasive evidence to support the government's claim that the information imbalance is of sufficient harm to voter behaviour or perceptions of electoral unfairness that it outweighs any damage done to a fundamental and constitutional protected right.

Related Research Articles

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography, hate speech, and obscenity.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section that constitutionally guarantees Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly, subject to the requirements of Section 1 of the Charter. Federal judges, prisoners and those in mental institutions have gained the franchise as a result of this provision, whereas the restriction on minors voting was found to be permissible due to section 1.

<i>Gosselin v Quebec (AG)</i> Canadian claim for a right to social assistance

Gosselin v Quebec (AG) [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84, is the first claim under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a right to an adequate level of social assistance. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Charter challenge against a Quebec law excluding citizens under age 30 from receiving full social security benefits.

<i>Harper v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Harper v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Court ruled that Canada Elections Act's spending limits on third party election advertising did violate section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was justified under Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority, that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school, as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.

<i>Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on the administrative law principle of natural justice.

<i>Dunmore v Ontario (AG)</i> 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision on freedom of association

Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

<i>Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.

<i>Lavoie v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Lavoie v Canada, [2002] 1 SCR 769, 2002 SCC 23 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether preference on basis of citizenship infringed equality guarantee under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that the federal Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which gave preference to citizens when referring to departments, was discriminatory. The violation was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation on equality rights.

Election silence, blackout period,pre-election silence, electoral silence, or campaign silence is a ban on political campaigning or media coverage of a general election, before or during that election.

<i>R v Kapp</i> Canadian Supreme Court decision

R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that held that a communal fishing license granted exclusively to Aboriginals did not violate Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case stemmed from an appeal by John Michael Kapp and a group of non-aboriginal commercial fishers who staged a "protest" fishery with the intention of being charged by law enforcement and challenging the constitutional status of an exclusive Aboriginal commercial fishing license.

Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act was designed to prevent the transmission of any election results until polls were closed nationwide. Section 329 stated that:

<i>Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

<i>Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc v Canada, 2008 SCC 15 is a Canadian constitutional law case, dealing with the language standards imposed by section 20(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to their duties as New Brunswick's police force.

<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>R v Zora</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14 is a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that the offence of breaching bail conditions under the Criminal Code requires subjective mens rea.

<i>Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General)</i> 2021 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Toronto (City) v Ontario , 2021 SCC 34, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and unwritten constitutional principles. By a 5–4 majority, the court held that the Government of Ontario's decision to reduce the size of the Toronto City Council in the middle of 2018 municipal election campaign did not violate either section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the unwritten principle of democracy. The court further held that unwritten constitutional principles could not serve as an independent basis to invalidate legislation.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 31052 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (2023-01-14). "Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Canada Elections Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2023-02-23.
  3. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (2003-01-01). "Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Canada Elections Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2023-02-23.
  4. ↑ "Election night results blackout a thing of the past". CBC News. Retrieved 17 October 2015.
  5. ↑ R. v. Bryan, 1S.C.C.527 , Para. 2.( SCC March 17, 2005).
  6. 1 2 3 "Supreme Court upholds blackout on early election night results". 2007-03-25. Archived from the original on 2007-03-25. Retrieved 2023-02-23.
  7. ↑ Para. 9.
  8. ↑ Para. 10.
  9. ↑ Para. 12.
  10. ↑ Para. 14.
  11. ↑ Para. 22.
  12. ↑ Para. 24.
  13. ↑ Para. 25.
  14. ↑ Para. 27.
  15. ↑ Para. 35.
  16. ↑ Para. 37.
  17. ↑ Para. 47.
  18. ↑ Para. 54-55.
  19. ↑ Para. 57.
  20. 1 2 Para. 61.
  21. 1 2 Para. 63.
  22. ↑ Para. 70.
  23. ↑ Para. 72.
  24. ↑ Para. 78.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.