Court overturns Hamilton reporter's contempt charge
Last Updated: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:40 PM ET
CBC News
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a charge of contempt against a journalist for refusing to reveal a source during testimony in a 2004 lawsuit.
In the ruling issued Monday in Toronto, the three-judge panel ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to journalist-informant confidentiality and, as a result, the contempt charge and fine against Hamilton Spectator reporter Ken Peters should be set aside.
In 2004, Peters refused to provide information that could identify a confidential source during a civil trial that stemmed from a series of articles he wrote.
Peters's stories, written in April 1995, focused on issues at a Hamilton nursing home. The allegations prompted the nursing home operators, St. Elizabeth Home Society, to file a lawsuit against the City of Hamilton and Halton Region.
In addition to the contempt charge, Peters was fined $31,600 to cover costs "thrown away" during the proceedings relating to his refusal to answer. The source, former city alderman Henry Merling, eventually came forward.
The Court of Appeal ruled that courts should do their best to obtain evidence from other sources before compelling a journalist to reveal a source. The ruling said that due to the freedom-of-speech rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "every effort should be made to minimize the impact upon those rights and values."
The ruling also found that the charge of contempt was premature.
"I agree with the appellant's submission that even after it has been determined that the rights of the litigants trump a journalist's claim of confidentiality, it is a mistake to cite the journalist for contempt immediately," the ruling read, adding that contempt power is to be used cautiously and only as a last resort.
"The court should first explore other means of proceeding that would be less intrusive to the journalist-informant relationship of confidentiality."
The ruling also said the judges "can see no justification" for having continued with contempt proceedings after the confidential source had been revealed.With files from the Canadian Press
1 comment:
Can someone tell me if Canada has a 'life time gag-order'? It certainly feels like it! The silence is loud and clear, and only protects the quilty! When civil liberties, amnesty and human right groups won't help, whats left?
Post a Comment