Previous 1 / 10 Next

[Indexed as: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General)] 105 O.R. (3d) 679 2011 ONSC 2281 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Himel J. April 11, 2011 Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Procedure on Charter application -- Expedited hearing -- Media applicants bringing application attacking constitutionality of s. 329 of Canada Elections Act after federal election was called and requesting urgent and expedited hearing -- Request denied -- Application could have been brought before federal election was called -Requiring respondent to prepare for hearing in expedited time frame would cause it significant prejudice -- Requiring application judge to make quick decision in important and complex issue not in public interest -- Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 329. After a federal election was called, the media applicants brought an application challenging the constitutionality of s. 329 of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits the transmission of election results in one electoral district to another electoral district before the close of all polling stations in that other district. The applicants sought a 2011 ONSC 2281 (CanLII) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. v. Attorney General of Canada

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the broadcasting restricted and alleged Charter violations therein may be heard on an expedited review basis.

Alleged Acts: In March of 2011 the Parliament was dissolved and elections were called for May. The plaintiff in this case is the largest private television broadcasters. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits the transmission of election results to another district before the close all polling stations in the second district, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Procedural history: The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing and court denied stating that expedited nature of the case would require a judge to make an immediate decision on a complex case and would not be in the public interest.

Summary: The plaintiffs argue that the law was set forth far before the age of modern social media when the sole method of communicating election results was traditional broadcast media. The plaintiffs further assert that Canada has three different time zones, but does not have staggered voting times. Thus, in the era of Facebook and Twitter this restriction is virtually impossible. The defendants do not argue the merit of the argument but that application was brought too close to the impending election date.

Conclusion: The court determined that issues pertaining to the Charter are of significant importance to Canadian society and must be given due care and consideration. The application itself contained significant data and social science, which the court and respondent would need to evaluate in order to properly address. Thus, the court ultimately refused the request for an expedited hearing.

Legal Issue(s)

Social Media
Vote Verification and Transmission

Region: Americas

Country: Canada

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Apr 11, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: 43.66785119051093

Longitude: -79.3679844822952

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada.pdf
english
Download View