The CCLA believes that the Canadian public has a constitutionally-protected right to receive information about the nature and the workings of our justice system. Lower Quebec Court decisions, however, found that the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of the press and freedom of expression did not apply in courthouses. This exclusion would frustrate freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the promotion of open courts, and ultimately democracy and justice itself. On March 16, 2010, CCLA will appear before the Supreme Court to argue that these decisions should be overturned.

Prior to 2005, journalists covering the judicial system were free to use recording equipment outside of courtrooms, and could broadcast excerpts of the courts’ official recordings of hearings. In 2005, however, directives were applied to many Montreal courthouses that confined all interviewing and camera use to designated areas, and prohibited all broadcasting of hearings. Shortly thereafter, the Quebec Ministry of Justice extended most of these restrictions to all courthouses in the province. When these decisions were challenged as an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of the press, the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal found that the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of the press did not apply in courthouses.

CCLA will argue that newsgathering in courthouses and the broadcasting of open court proceedings convey crucial information about the nature and workings of the justice system, and that the Canadian public has a constitutional right to receive this information. The measures adopted by the Quebec courts and Ministry of Justice are overly broad, and make the administration of justice less accessible, less comprehensible, and less accountable to the public. There is no justification for imposing blanket rules on all judicial proceedings in Quebec, rather than tailoring appropriate responses to unique situations.

To read CCLA’s factum click here.

The hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2010. To watch a live webcast of the SCC hearings click here.

CCLA will intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada on March 18^th, 2010, in the case of R. v. Ahmad.  The case concerns the constitutionality of ss. 38-38.16 of the Evidence Act, which prevent an accused from seeing certain evidence in the State’s case against him or her, on the grounds of the National Security Privilege (NSP), and create a bifurcated trial process wherein the Federal Court system considers questions about the NSP.  The CCLA will argue that an accused’s fair trial and due process rights are unjustifiably impaired by a system that (i) deprives the accused of knowing the full case against him or her, (ii) deprives the trial judge from seeing the withheld material, and deprives the trial judge of the ability to determine the extent of the NSP including the scope and remedies relating to disclosure, and (iii) creates delay through the bifurcated trial process.   The CCLA will make recommendations for alternatives in keeping with the Charter and an accused’s fair trial rights.

Read CCLA’s factum

French

The federal government has released a discussion paper that proposes the following amendments to the Criminal Code :

• Legislatively expressing the purposes of the transport offence legislation
• Linking minimum fines for first impaired driving offenders to BAC
• Random breath testing
• Eliminating the “bolus drinking” defence and restricting the intervening drink defence
• Placing limits on disclosure
• Eliminating or limiting the right to counsel prior to an Approved Instrument test.

The CCLA will be participating in this consultation and submit a brief to the government.  It will seek to ensure that Charter rights to counsel are not unduly undermined and that no additional coercive powers are granted to law enforcement unless the necessity for such additional powers has been demonstrated and proper accountability imeasures have been implemented.  In particular, the CCLA is concerned about the possibility of abuses that exist with the additional powers to randomly stop any driver, even without any suspicion of wrongdoing, to submit to a breath test.

This post is also available in: French

On Monday March 8th the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sent a letter to all Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustees and senior officials inviting the TDSB to reconsider its ban on all potential “Israeli Apartheid Week” (IAW) activities.  The CCLA urged TDSB to repeal this blanket ban in light of its impact on students’ and teachers’ freedom of expression and freedom of association rights.  Schools and the school board should not limit the activities and causes that students can support, champion or engage with.  Any restrictions on expression must be fully justified and carefully tailored. A blanket ban such as that imposed by the TDSB Director of Education cannot meet this standard.  Such a response also hampers teachers, who may choose to use controversial subjects their students are already engaged with as ‘teachable’ moments to foster critical thinking, debate and awareness.  Barring exceptional circumstances, the appropriate response to controversial student initiatives is not banning and silencing a given discourse, but questioning, discussing and teaching.

To read CCLA’s letter to the TDSB click here.

The federal government announced in last week’s budget that $8 million will be allocated to enhance independent review of the RCMP.  This is welcome news to the CCLA, which has been advocating for increased independent review and audit powers for RCMP activities for many years.  In the CCLA’s view, an effective independent review mechanism must have the following attributes:

• The authority to conduct self-generated reviews;
• Extensive investigative powers, including access to all relevant records, facilities and personnel;
• An obligation to submit regular public reports to Parliament; and
• The power to review the actions of other government agencies that may be involved in national security activities.

The CCLA will be closely monitoring this issue over the coming months to ensure that the specific details of the government’s plan are consistent with a commitment to strong independent review of Canada’s national police force.  The CCLA will also continue to push for enhanced independent review of police activity at the provincial and municipal levels.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has sent a letter to York University expressing concern about the freedom of speech implications of York’s policy that student groups hosting speakers or events that require additional security must bear the costs of hiring the Toronto Police Services.  A recent event planned by the York University student group Christians United for Israel was reportedly cancelled after the student group was unable or unwilling to pay the extra security costs.  Too often, the effect of such a policy will be to prevent the attendance of controversial speakers who express a minority opinion.  In the case of the CUFI event, which organizers have said was intended to be a counterpoint to the opinions expressed during Israeli Apartheid Week, the implications are particularly troubling.  Israeli Apartheid Week is highly controversial both on campus and in the wider community, making it all the more important that dissenting voices be afforded the opportunity to speak.  CCLA has more than once defended the rights of anti-apartheid groups to hold events and not be censored in their expression; it is unfortunate that in this instance the other side of the debate will not be heard.

To read CCLA’s letter to York University click here.

On March 4, 2010 Finance Minister Jim Flaherty presented the 2010 Budget in the House of Commons.  In keeping with normal procedures, the budget will now be followed up with a series of motions and Bills to implement the proposed measures.

Contained in the Budget, and the Speech from the Throne delivered on March 3, 2010, are a number of issues that the CCLA will continue to monitor.

• Money has been committed to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Transport Canada for what appear to be security related programs.  The CCLA supports measures to ensure the safety of Canadians, and will examine any security policy to ensure that there are no unnecessary infringements of citizens’ privacy or fundamental freedoms.  The funding provided to Canada’s security bodies includes $28 million to CSIS over two years to “ensure its effective operation in the current global environment”; $87 million over two years for the CBSA for, in part, “state of the art” vehicle and cargo scanning equipment and information systems; and nearly $38 million to Transport Canada for increased aviation security programs.   This is in addition to the $1.5 billion over five years previously allocated to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and Transport Canada, to maintain Canada’s air transport security system, “to better align with international security requirements, and to keep up with recent U.S. measures.”
• With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP), $8 million has been allocated for the establishment of a new RCMP review organization, which is referred to by the government as a “civilian independent review and complaints commission.”  The CCLA welcomes an improved oversight body for the RCMP and monitor further development on this subject.  To read more about the CCLA’s position on oversight of the RCMP, click here. 
• The government has dedicated $14 million to the National DNA Databank, and announced that it is considering privatizing the RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services.   The CCLA is concerned generally about the potential privacy implications of DNA Databank and will monitoring this issue closely.
• The Speech from the Throne made it clear that the government is set to bring back numerous justice bills which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued last December. (To read what the CCLA had to say about this prorogation, click here).  It is anticipated that these bills will touch upon some issues that are of potential concern to the CCLA, such as minimum mandatory sentences and expanded investigatory powers. For more on the CCLA’s position on minimum mandatory sentences, click here or here. For more on the CCLA’s position on previously proposed changes to the sex offender registry, click here.  For the CCLA’s position on increased “cyber surveillance” powers, click here.

To access the government’s summary of the budget (“the Budget in Brief”), the full budget document, the budget speech and other resources, you can visit the government’s Budget 2010 website at website.  Many news outlets and other organizations also have Budget 2010 pages, with analysis and highlights.   In addition, the text of the Speech from the Throne, which announced the government’s priorities for the 3^rd session of the 40^th Parliament, can be read in the transcripts of March 3rd, 2010.

We have just bid a fond farewell to Donna Gilmour who has recently retired after being a fixture at the CCLA since 1990.  As the sole administrative assistant in the office, everyone at the CCLA from our members, the CCLA Board and staff members, to volunteers,casual drop-ins, and the delivery people have had the pleasure of speaking with Donna, as well as knowing and working with her.  We hope that her days are spent in relaxation and that she comes back for visits often; Donna’s presence is already missed!

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has released its decision in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal et al., overturning lower findings that Mr. Whatcott had violated Saskatchewan’s ‘hate speech’ legislation.  Mr. Whatcott distributed flyers that made a series of statements about homosexuality and certain sexual behaviour, often using crude and confrontational language. CCLA appeared before the Court to advocate for a robust protection for freedom of expression. While strongly repudiating Mr. Whatcott’s statements, CCLA nonetheless believes that a strong democracy must have a high degree of tolerance for debates about moral issues, even when expressed in polemical terms, provided the speaker does not engage in violence, incitement to violence, or threats.  The Court of Appeal found that both the Tribunal and the Court of Queen’s Bench failed to examine the statements in context, and did not take adequate account of freedom of expression.

To read the Court of Appeal’s decision click here.

To read CCLA’s factum before the Court of Appeal click here.