Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a law limiting what media outlets could publish about matrimonial and civil court proceedings violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression and freedom of the press and media. The Edmonton Journal brought a suit against the government of Alberta after it passed the prohibitive law. The Court explained that freedom of expression was essential to democracy and could not be restricted because it informed the public and exposed the court system to public scrutiny.

Facts

The Edmonton Journal brought suit against the government of Alberta after they passed Section 30 of the Judicature Act (“the Act”). Section 30 of the Act limited what newspapers and other media outlets could publish with regards to matrimonial and civil court proceedings. Under Section 30(1) of the Act, media outlets were prevented from publishing information regarding  matrimonial suits beyond names, addresses, occupations, a concise statement of the charges, counter-charges, and the findings of the court. Furthermore, under Section 30(2) of the Act, materials that could be published in civil proceedings were restricted to names of the parties, the general nature of the claims, and defenses. The Edmonton Journal argued that such limitations violated Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects individual’s freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and freedom of the press and media.

After the district court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the charges, the Edmonton Journal appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada which approved the appeal and ruled on the case.

Decision Overview

Overall, the Supreme Court held that Section 30 of the  Alberta Judicature Act violated Article 2(b) and was not justified under Article 1 of the Canadian Charter of  Rights and Freedom. C.J. Dickson, JJ. Lamar, and JJ. Cory delivered the opinion of the Court emphasizing that the freedom of expression is essential to democracy. Freedom of the press cannot be restricted, for it serves to inform the public and exposes the court system to public scrutiny. Section 30 of the Act was too broad and lesser measures to protect the privacy, affected third parties, and to ensure fairness could have been taken.

JJ. La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé and Sopinka dissented in part, writing that some of the limitations in Section 30 of the Alberta Judicature Act are justified. They specify parts of the Act that protect excessive privacy information that is needless to any form of public debate. The dissenters fear that by not adequately protecting information such as the name of children and witnesses involved, matrimonial conflicts will be prevented from going to court. The dissenters argue that Section 30(1) concerning limitations on matrimonial proceedings is Constitutional, while Section 30(2) violates 2(b) of the Charter.