The National News Media Council has ruled uncensored coverage of court proceedings is “an important feature of public transparency,” according to Blacklock’s Reporter. The decision came in the case of a British Columbia weekly criticized for publishing fraud allegations against two local residents.“Canada has an open court system,” wrote the council. “When a trial is not covered by a publication ban, journalists are permitted to report on arguments and facts presented by the court’s consideration. This is an important feature of public transparency and accountability.”The ruling followed complaints by a woman named in a May 10 article in the Chilliwack Progress. The former manager of a local women’s shelter and her daughter were identified as defendants in a lawsuit allegedly $1,397,704 in fraud.The Progress headline read, “Mother, Daughter Sued By Chilliwack Society For Misappropriating $1.4M.” The mother named in the story claimed defamation since no facts were proven and the article “failed to mention the word ‘alleged’ given that a decision about the claim had not been reached by the court.”The couple were sued for misappropriation, conspiracy and fraud, the Progress reported. Readers were told of “wrongful charges and transactions” including “cash withdrawals, personal cheques, e-transfers as well as purchases of groceries, gas, dining, furniture, clothing, electronics, gift cards, airfare, beauty products, alcohol, casino and more.”Media typically are shielded from libel suits when reporting on court filings. “Legal proceedings are absolutely privileged,” the Supreme Court of Canada noted in a landmark 2009 case Grant v. Torstar Corporation.The Court at the time broadened reporters’ defence against libel to include “public interest responsible journalism.” The decision came in the case of an unsuccessful libel suit against the Toronto Star after it implied a Twin Lakes, ON, golf course developer obtained permits due to political influence.“The subject matter must be shown to be one inviting public attention or about which the public or a segment of the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached,” wrote the Court.“Fear of being sued for libel may prevent the publication of information about matters of public interest. The public may never learn the full truth on the matter at hand.”“Freedom does not negate responsibility. It is vital that media act responsibly in reporting facts on matters of public concern, holding themselves to the highest journalistic standards.”
The National News Media Council has ruled uncensored coverage of court proceedings is “an important feature of public transparency,” according to Blacklock’s Reporter. The decision came in the case of a British Columbia weekly criticized for publishing fraud allegations against two local residents.“Canada has an open court system,” wrote the council. “When a trial is not covered by a publication ban, journalists are permitted to report on arguments and facts presented by the court’s consideration. This is an important feature of public transparency and accountability.”The ruling followed complaints by a woman named in a May 10 article in the Chilliwack Progress. The former manager of a local women’s shelter and her daughter were identified as defendants in a lawsuit allegedly $1,397,704 in fraud.The Progress headline read, “Mother, Daughter Sued By Chilliwack Society For Misappropriating $1.4M.” The mother named in the story claimed defamation since no facts were proven and the article “failed to mention the word ‘alleged’ given that a decision about the claim had not been reached by the court.”The couple were sued for misappropriation, conspiracy and fraud, the Progress reported. Readers were told of “wrongful charges and transactions” including “cash withdrawals, personal cheques, e-transfers as well as purchases of groceries, gas, dining, furniture, clothing, electronics, gift cards, airfare, beauty products, alcohol, casino and more.”Media typically are shielded from libel suits when reporting on court filings. “Legal proceedings are absolutely privileged,” the Supreme Court of Canada noted in a landmark 2009 case Grant v. Torstar Corporation.The Court at the time broadened reporters’ defence against libel to include “public interest responsible journalism.” The decision came in the case of an unsuccessful libel suit against the Toronto Star after it implied a Twin Lakes, ON, golf course developer obtained permits due to political influence.“The subject matter must be shown to be one inviting public attention or about which the public or a segment of the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached,” wrote the Court.“Fear of being sued for libel may prevent the publication of information about matters of public interest. The public may never learn the full truth on the matter at hand.”“Freedom does not negate responsibility. It is vital that media act responsibly in reporting facts on matters of public concern, holding themselves to the highest journalistic standards.”
