Previous 6 / 10 Next

[5] The position of the applicants is that this application should be heard on an urgent basis as the decision will have a profound impact on the right of freedom of expression of the media and of individual Canadians during the election. Counsel argues that the restriction in s. 329 was originally enacted to regulate the traditional broadcast media and that the evidence before the Supreme Court in R. v. Bryan reflected the state of the media at that time. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the last five years. As is outlined in the evidence upon which the applicants will rely, the Internet and new social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs create opportunities for the uncontrolled transmission of information. This information may include misinformation. The applicants argue that they will be unable to provide accurate timely information about the election. Counsel says that he would be available to argue the matter on April 26 or 27, 2011, and that the argument would take a total of approximately one half day. [6] Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada submits that the applicants have created an unfair urgency by seeking an application date within such time constraints. He takes the position that he received the application record on April 8 and that he requires time to retain experts on behalf of the respondent [page684] and prepare responding evidence. The parties will have to conduct cross-examinations and prepare written argument for the court within a time frame that is untenable. Counsel further submits that the argument of the 2011 ONSC 2281 (CanLII) meet today's standards of statistical reliability, is of questionable validity and the relevance of the information to the current environment has been affected by the technological change in the media of communications; and (5) a two-page affidavit of the director of legal and business affairs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who says that although Australia has three time zones, it does not have staggered voting hours for federal elections and there is no law prohibiting the transmission of election results to the public in areas where polling stations remain open. Positions of the Parties

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

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada

Primary Documents

Notifications