Law
The new defence of responsible communication is good news for the media, but Ryerson University's Jeffrey A. Dvorkin doubts it will usher in a new wave investigative journalism. As layoffs continue and newsrooms are pared down to the editorial bone, the ability of news organizations to engage in deep, contextual investigative journalism is far from what it once was, or what it should be.And lawyer Alan Shanoff, who teaches media law at Humber College, cautions the devil will be in the details as judges and juries apply the court's broad definitions of public interest and responsible journalism to stories targetted with libel suits. Read Shanoff's columns in The Law Times and the Toronto Sun.
The Supreme Court of Canada has created a new libel defence – the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest. In a landmark ruling that orders new trials in libel actions against two Ontario newspapers, the court introduced the British defence of responsible journalism with a new name and some made-in-Canada modifications. The defence is based on the conduct of the journalists and editors who produce the story, and can defeat a libel claim even if some facts and allegations published or broadcast turn out to be wrong or false.
The court established a broad definition of the public interest, saying it is not limited to stories on politics and can apply to stories of interest to a limited audience if the subject is of public importance. The rulings set seven criteria for judging whether journalists acted responsibly, including the seriousness of the allegations, the reliability of sources and whether the person defamed was given a chance to respond. There are two other important aspects to the ruling...
The court, which was cool to the idea of a blanket immunity for sources, reserved decision on a case that should strike a balance between the Charter guarantee of press freedom and police efforts to investigate crime. Janice Tibbetts of Canwest News Service reports in the National Post.
Ottawa (May 21) – The Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether a Globe and Mail reporter can be forced to reveal his confidential sources in the federal sponsorship scandal.
At the heart of the appeal is a controversial Quebec Superior Court decision last August that allowed lawyers for an advertising firm, La Groupe Polygone, to question reporter Daniel Leblanc about sources who supplied information about the sponsorship program. Read Kirk Makin’s report in the Globe.
The appeal is one of a "tidal wave" of five cases before the Supreme Court – two on when to protect confidential sources, two on revamping libel law and the other on banning publication of bail hearings – that will test the value Canadians place on freedom of the press. Makin reports in the Globe.
Journalists and the Law
Follow the links above for information, advice and commentary on legal issues that affect how journalists do their jobs.
Sub-categories
 | Support J-Source | ||
 | Best online-only article or series | ||
J-Source and ProjetJ are projects of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading schools and organizations Editor-in-chief, J-Source: | |||
Peter Worthington: 10 facts about the journalist who wrote his own obituary
Peter Worthington would have known that there is a venerable tradition of journalists writing...
Opinion: Why all journalists should study public relations
I like this. It's very important to see the closeness of public relations and journalism....
Do journalists really need to take a course to learn that practitioners of PR are working for...