Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada

Majority: s.517 Cr. C. infringes s.2(b) but the infringement is justified under s.1 because the mandatory publication ban is integrally connected to Parliament’s pressing and substantial objectives of safeguarding fair trial rights and ensuring expeditious bail hearings as part of bail reform; the ban is rationally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 SCC 21
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Associated Press; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: CTV Television Inc.; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: A.A.; Respondent: F.A.; Respondent: S.A.; Respondent: Qayyum Abdul Jamal; Respondent: A.M.D.; Respondent: S.V.C.; Respondent: Ahmad Mustafa Ghany; Intervener: Attorney General of Ontario; Intervener: Attorney General of Alberta; Intervener: N.S. (young person); Intervener: N.Y. (young person); Intervener: Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Intervener: Canadian Newspaper Association; Intervener: AD IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association; Intervener: RTNDA Canada/Association of Electronic Journalists; Intervener: Canadian Association of Journalists; Appellant: Edmonton Journal (CanWest); Appellant: Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. (The Globe and Mail); Appellant: Edmonton Sun (Sun Media); Respondent: Michael James White; Intervener: Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Criminal Code Publication Ban / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Appeal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal in Ontario allowed; mandatory publication ban in s.517 Criminal Code upheld by majority (Abella J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Publication Ban, Bail, Open Court Principle, Oakes Test, Dagenais/mentuck Test
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Publication Ban Bail Open Court Principle Oakes Test +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Associated Press

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

CTV Television Inc.

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

A.A.

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

F.A.

Respondent

S.A.

Respondent

Qayyum Abdul Jamal

Respondent

A.M.D.

Respondent

S.V.C.

Respondent

Ahmad Mustafa Ghany

Respondent

Attorney General of Ontario

Intervener

Attorney General of Alberta

Intervener

N.S. (young person)

Intervener

N.Y. (young person)

Intervener

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Intervener

Canadian Newspaper Association

Intervener

AD IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association

Intervener

RTNDA Canada/Association of Electronic Journalists

Intervener

Canadian Association of Journalists

Intervener

Edmonton Journal (CanWest)

Appellant

Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. (The Globe and Mail)

Appellant

Edmonton Sun (Sun Media)

Appellant

Michael James White

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Criminal Code Publication Ban / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.517 Cr. C. mandatory publication ban infringes s.2(b) Charter freedom of expression
  2. 2 If infringement, whether it is justified under s.1 of the Charter (Oakes test)
  3. 3 Whether Dagenais/Mentuck discretionary-ban framework or Oakes applies to statutory mandatory ban

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: s.517 Cr. C. infringes s.2(b) but the infringement is justified under s.1 because the mandatory publication ban is integrally connected to Parliament’s pressing and substantial objectives of safeguarding fair trial rights and ensuring expeditious bail hearings as part of bail reform; the ban is rationally connected to those objectives, minimally impairs freedom of expression in context, and its salutary effects outweigh deleterious effects. Dissent: mandatory aspect fails proportionality and should be severed to leave discretionary regime.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal in Ontario allowed; mandatory publication ban in s.517 Criminal Code upheld by majority (Abella J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Cross-appeal allowed