Supreme Court of Canada we may have a problem here!

Good Day Readers:

Arthur Weinreb's article offers an excellent synopsis of the Supreme Court's December 2009 decision which essentially re-wrote our defamation laws. We must confess we haven't read the ruling in its entirety but for those with certain masochistic tendencies all 57-pages are available at:

www.scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/

Mr. Weinreb is a contributor to suite101.com author and columnist. His work has as appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, The Drudge Report, Foxnews.com and The Rant. He was called to the bar of Ontario in 1975 and practised law for 25 years. In addition he's co-author of The Criminal Lawyers' Guide to Immigration and Citizenship Law (Canada Law Book, 1996) and is currently the Associate Editor and a columnist with Canada Free Press. He can be reached at aweinret@interlog.com.

Supreme Court of Canada Broadens Defamation Law - Defense of Responsible Communication in Public Interest Recognized
January 3, 2010
By Arthur Weinreb

Supreme Court of Canada Adds New Defense to Libel - Journalists and other media, including bloggers, will be protected from lawsuits if they diligently try to verify information on matters that are in the public interest.

On December 22, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down two decisions that added a new defense to the tort of defamation. No longer will journalists and other publishers be limited to the defense of truth or some form of qualified privilege. In two 9-0 judgments, Canada’s top court added the defense of responsible communication in the public interest to the country’s libel law.

Grant v. Torstar Corporation

The first case involved Ontario landowner, Peter Grant. Grant had a proposal to build a private golf course on his estate. Many of his neighbours were opposed to the plan on environmental grounds. Some were quoted in a Toronto Star article as saying that the golf course was a “done deal” because Grant had political influence and had already secured governmental approval for his plans. The reporter had contacted Grant who replied “no comment”.

Grant sued and was awarded damages at trial. The defendants were unable to prove that Grant’s use of political influence was in fact true. On appeal from the judgment, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, ruling that the defendants could raise the defense of responsible journalism rather than have to prove the truth of what was written.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally our point. In the article below we've highlighted those passages of concern. To Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Scott:

"The Supreme Court of Canada's aforementioned ruling appears to be silent on the question of whether citizen journalists/bloggers are now considered accredited members of the media. Should one show up in your courtroom would these provisions apply equally to them?"

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
BlackBerry ban at Colonel Williams hearing lifted
Thursday, October 14, 2010
CBC News

Colonel Russell Williams will plead guilty to the more than 80 charges against him, his lawyer said on October 7. (CBC)

Journalists will be able to use laptops, BlackBerrys and cellphones in the courtroom next week during the sentencing hearing of admitted murderer and sexual stalker Colonel Russell Williams. (emphasis ours)

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Scott agreed in a Belleville, Ontario courtroom on Thursday to lift a ban on the use of the electronic devices in the courtroom for accredited members of the media (emphasis ours) after a pre-trial motion from the CBC and the Ottawa Citizen.

Media lawyers had argued for access to exhibits in the case and the lifting of restrictions imposed on journalists in the courtroom.

Last week, Williams announced through his lawyer that he plans to plead guilty to murder, sexual assault and scores of break-ins and thefts at a sentencing hearing set for October 18.

The former commander at CFB Trenton arrived in court from the Napanee Detention Centre in shackles and handcuffs. About a dozen reporters and three or four members of the public were in court, significantly fewer people than the crowd that gathered during last week's appearance.

But most of the discussion happened behind closed doors as Crown, defence and media lawyers talked about what should be allowed in the courtroom and what evidence should remain sealed for the protection of victims.

Scott also ruled that audio tape recording devices will be allowed to facilitate the taking of accurate notes. Members of the public will not be allowed to use laptops, cellphones or other recording devices during the sentencing and plea. (emphasis ours)

The media lawyers also asked the judge, as well as prosecutors and Williams's lawyer, for clarification over what evidence can be released to the public and what can be published in the case once his sentencing hearing begins.

That issue will not be resolved until Monday, however, when a plea is entered and evidence exhibits are presented before the court. Once the exhibits are known, media will be able to request which evidence they wish to report to the public and the court will decide whether to allow some or all of it, or if the material requested is too sensitive. (emphasis ours)

Among the evidence is a lengthy statement a co-operative Williams made to police on the day of his arrest, as well as boxes of items seized during raids the same day at Williams's two homes in Ottawa and Tweed. Those boxes contain reams of photographs and articles of women's clothing along with meticulous notes Williams kept about break-ins and thefts in both communities.