Canada Case Law

Morton v. Union of BC Indian Chiefs

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The UBCIC Letter was expression on a matter of public interest; plaintiff conceded substantial merit but failed to show the defendant had no valid defences — justification (substantial truth), fair comment, and qualified privilege each have real prospects of success; plaintiff failed to establish causation or harm sufficient to outweigh the high public interest in protecting the UBCIC's counter-speech; therefore the defamation claim is dismissed under PPPA s.4(2).

Source excerpt

• Protection of public participation act (pppa)
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Qualified privilege
• Public interest balancing
• Costs (s.7)

Read case analysis

Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre v. Charbonneau

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal set aside an interlocutory injunction restraining segments of a documentary about the Vancouver Aquarium, finding errors on irreparable harm and freedom of expression.

• Interlocutory injunction
• Fair dealing
• Non-commercial user-generated content (s.29.21)
• Irreparable harm
• Balance of convenience
• Moral rights

Read case analysis

Awan v. Levant

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the trial judge: multiple blog posts were defamatory, the trial judge reasonably characterized some statements as factual (or found the factual underpinnings unproven), and the trial judge’s finding of express malice was supported by the record which defeated available defences; the damages award ($50,000 general and $30,000 aggravated) and takedown/other trial orders were not disturbed and the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed to the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Libel
• Fair comment
• Qualified privilege
• Malice
• Damages
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

R. v. Tang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a media request to release trial exhibit DVDs, finding that broadcasting them before a related future trial would risk prejudicing a fair jury trial.

• Release of court exhibits
• Publication ban (s.486.5)
• Dagenais/mentuck test
• Open court principle
• Fair trial and jury contamination
• Undercover officer identity protection

Read case analysis

R. v. Haevischer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the media respondents’ application for production of an immunity agreement, holding they lacked standing to compel disclosure of non-record Crown materials.

• Standing of non-parties
• Disclosure obligations of the crown
• Publication bans
• Open court principle
• Immunity agreements
• Third-party access to crown materials

Read case analysis

R. v. Sipes

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that media have presumptive, timely access to trial exhibits, subject to timely objections and the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

• Media access to court exhibits
• Publication bans
• Dagenais/mentuck test
• Court record disclosure procedure
• Onus for restricting access
• Media-access-to-court-exhibits

Read case analysis

R. v. Fawcett

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Keith Francis William Noble guilty of wilfully promoting hatred under Criminal Code s. 319(2) based on public Internet postings and website materials.

• Hate speech
• Promotion of hatred
• Section 319(2) criminal code
• Private conversation exception
• Jurisdiction over internet communications
• Hate-speech

Read case analysis

R. v. Valliere

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted a publication ban under s. 539(1) for undercover officers in Valliere, ordering it indefinite for full-time operators and three years for pool operators.

• Publication ban
• Undercover officers
• Pseudonyms
• Section 539(1) criminal code
• Open court principle
• Publication-ban

Read case analysis

R. v. M.C.R.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Although statutory youth-name protections ceased upon transfer and adult sentencing, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and ordered a targeted publication ban on medical, psychological, pre-disposition and pre-sentence reports after applying the Mentuck/Dagenais framework and finding publication would pose a serious risk to the proper administration of justice by undermining the offender's rehabilitation and future candid reporting; the salutary effects of the ban outweighed the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and no reasonable alternative was available.

Source excerpt

• Publication ban
• Transfer to adult court
• Confidentiality of psychological and medical reports
• Rehabilitation vs freedom of expression

Read case analysis