Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires thats good!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Prop. 8,California Supreme Court, case text.
Release Number: 29
Release Date: May 26, 2009
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to
OF THE COURTS
Public Information Office
Prop. 8, But Finds Existing Marriages of
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Same-Sex Couples Valid
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
415-865-7740
San Francisco — The California Supreme Court, by a 6-1 vote, today rejected a
Lynn Holton
constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative measure adopted by the
Public Information Officer
voters at the November 4, 2008 election that added a section to the California
Constitution providing “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.” The court’s opinion resolves the petitions in Strauss
v. Horton, S168047, Tyler v. State of California, S168066, and City and County
of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078. The opinion is available online at
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ .
The court further unanimously held that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow,
limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex
couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of
same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases
(2008) 43 Cal.4th 757.
The court also unanimously held that the new constitutional provision applies
only prospectively, and does not affect the continued validity of the estimated
18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that occurred prior to November 5, 2008,
when the new constitutional provision took effect. The challenges to
Proposition 8 before the court were filed by numerous same-sex couples and
public entities and were based solely on the provisions of the California
Constitution and did not raise any federal constitutional claim.
The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, and
was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, and
Carol A. Corrigan. In addition to signing the majority opinion, Justice Kennard
filed a separate concurring opinion.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the
result reached by the majority opinion but disagreeing in part with its analysis. Justice Carlos R.
Moreno filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority’s conclusion that
Proposition 8 applies only prospectively but concluding that Proposition 8 is invalid because it is
not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
MAJORITY OPINION
The 136-page majority opinion notes at the outset that the court’s role is not to determine whether
Proposition 8 “is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should
be a part of the California Constitution,” but rather “is limited to interpreting and applying the
principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs
and values.”
The opinion further emphasizes that the principal legal issue in this case is entirely distinct from the
issue that was presented in the court’s decision last year in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th
757. There, the court was called upon to determine “the validity (or invalidity) of a statutory
provision limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman under state constitutional
provisions that do not expressly permit or prescribe such a limitation.” In the present case, by
contrast, the principal issue “concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of
the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative
process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.”
Amendment or Revision
Under the California Constitution the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt
constitutional amendments but may not be used to revise the state Constitution. Petitioners
primarily contend that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision rather than a constitutional
amendment and therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.
In addressing the question whether Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment or, instead,
a constitutional revision, the majority observes that “we by no means write on a clean slate.” The
opinion explains that the amendment/revision dichotomy dates back to the original 1849 California
Constitution, long before the adoption of the initiative process in 1911; the origin and history of the
distinction “indicates that the category of constitutional revision referred to the kind of wholesale or
fundamental alteration of the constitutional structure that appropriately could be undertaken only by
a constitutional convention, in contrast to the category of constitutional amendments which included
any and all of the more discrete changes to the Constitution that thereafter might be proposed.”
Furthermore, the opinion points out that over the past three decades numerous California Supreme
Court decisions have established that in determining whether a constitutional change constitutes a
revision rather than an amendment, a court must assess “(1) the meaning and scope of the
constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the
2
constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the
preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”
Analyzing the scope of Proposition 8, the majority opinion explains that, contrary to petitioners’
assertions, the initiative measure does not “entirely repeal” or “abrogate” the aspect of a same-sex
couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process discussed in the majority opinion in
the Marriage Cases — namely, the constitutional right to “choose one’s life partner and enter with
that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all
of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” — nor does it “fundamentally alter” the
substance of state constitutional equal protection principles recognized in that opinion.
Instead, it carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official
designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all
of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized
and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.
The opinion emphasizes that it is not minimizing the significance that the official designation of
“marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8, and explains that an
accurate assessment of the actual effect of Proposition 8 on the constitutional rights of same-sex
couples is necessary to evaluate the constitutional challenges that are advanced in this case.
The majority opinion then analyzes the quantitative and qualitative effect of Proposition 8 on the
preexisting provisions of the state Constitution. Petitioners concede that the measure does not
amount to a quantitative revision, but maintain that it constitutes a qualitative revision. Addressing
this contention, the opinion explains that the distinction between an amendment and a revision does
not depend upon the relative importance of the measure in question, pointing out that “(1) the right
of women to vote in California, (2) the initiative, referendum, and recall powers, (3) the
reinstatement of the death penalty, (4) an explicit right of privacy, (5) a substantial modification of
the statewide real property tax system, and (6) legislative term limits — to list only a very few
examples — all became part of the California Constitution by constitutional amendment, not by
constitutional revision.”
Instead, the governing decisions establish that whether a change amounts to a qualitative revision
depends upon the nature and scope of the proposed alteration. Reiterating the standard that has
been applied in all of the numerous California cases decided in recent decades, the opinion states
that to constitute a qualitative revision “a constitutional measure must make a far reaching change in
the fundamental governmental structure or the foundational power of its branches as set forth in the
Constitution.”
Applying this standard to Proposition 8, the opinion concludes that a measure limiting access to the
designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not meet this test. Although petitioners claim
that the proposition transforms the judicial function, the opinion explains that the measure does not
3
interfere with the courts’ ability or traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the
provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the
voters’ approval of Proposition 8.
Petitioners also contend that Proposition 8 should be considered a constitutional revision because it
conflicts with a fundamental constitutional principle that protects a minority group from having its
constitutional rights diminished in any respect by majority vote. The majority opinion explains
there is no authority to support the claim that in California a majority of voters may not adopt
through the initiative process a measure that diminishes a state constitutional right, even if that right
has been interpreted and applied in a judicial decision. The opinion cites many amendments to the
California Constitution, adopted through the initiative process by majority vote in response to court
decisions, that have had just such an effect.
Although a number of other state constitutions contain provisions that preclude using the initiative
power to amend specified provisions of those constitutions, the majority opinion emphasizes that
the California Constitution contains no comparable limitation. Because there is no express
restriction on the initiative power, and consistent with past California holdings, the majority opinion
concludes that the California Constitution does not restrict the people’s right to use the initiative to
modify preexisting constitutional rights through the approval of Proposition 8.
Separation of Powers
The majority opinion next addresses petitioners’ claim that Proposition 8 violates the state
constitutional separation of powers doctrine. The majority opinion rejects this contention, pointing
out that, contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not “readjudicate” the issue that was
resolved by this court in the Marriage Cases. Proposition 8 does not purport to revisit the question
of the state of the law at the time of the Marriage Cases, but instead establishes a new substantive
constitutional rule that took effect upon the voters’ approval of the initiative measure.
Further, because the state Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of the people to amend the
Constitution through the initiative process, the people, in exercising that authority, have not usurped
a power allocated by the Constitution exclusively to the judiciary or another branch of government.
Inalienable Rights
The majority opinion next addresses and rejects the Attorney General’s claim that because article I,
section 1 of the California Constitution characterizes certain rights including the right of privacy as
“inalienable,” Proposition 8 is invalid because it abrogates such rights without a compelling interest.
The opinion explains that not only does Proposition 8 not “abrogate” the aspect of the right of
privacy discussed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, but that the identification of a
4
right as “inalienable” has never been understood to mean that such right is exempt from any
limitation or to preclude the adoption of a constitutional amendment that restricts the scope of such
a right. The opinion emphasizes that there is no authority to support the Attorney General’s theory.
Validity of Existing Marriages of Same-Sex Couples
Finally, the majority opinion addresses the question of the effect of Proposition 8 on the marriages
of same-sex couples performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Applying the well-
established legal principles that govern whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to
apply prospectively or retroactively, the opinion concludes that Proposition 8 cannot be interpreted
to apply retroactively and that the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the effective
date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in California. This holding
of the majority opinion was concurred in by all of the justices.
JUSTICE KENNARD’S CONCURRING OPINION
In her separate concurring opinion, Justice Kennard explains that “[a]lthough the people through the
initiative power may not change the court’s interpretation of language in the state Constitution, they
may change the constitutional language itself, and thereby enlarge or reduce the personal rights that
the state Constitution as so amended will thereafter guarantee and protect.
“The difference between interpretation and alteration is the difference between the judicial and
legislative powers. Interpretation of existing statutory and constitutional provisions is a
fundamental power of the judicial branch, while alteration of existing statutory and constitutional
provisions — by addition, deletion, or modification — is a fundamental legislative power that the
people may exercise through the initiative process.
“Although this court’s decision in the Marriage Cases remains the final word on the meaning of the
state Constitution as it then read, the people have now used their initiative power to refashion the
wording of the California Constitution and by this means have altered its substance, and thus its
meaning, as of the effective date of the initiative measure.”
JUSTICE WERDEGAR’S CONCURRING OPINION
In her concurring opinion, Justice Werdegar states that although she agrees with the majority
opinion that Proposition 8 “is a valid amendment to the California Constitution rather than a
procedurally defective revision,” she rejects “much of the majority’s analysis.”
Disagreeing with the majority that prior California decisions define a constitutional revision as
limited to a constitutional change that is “focused on governmental structure and organization,” the
concurring opinion declares that “[t]he drafters of our Constitution never imagined, nor would they
have approved, a rule that gives the foundational principles of social organization in free societies,
5
such as equal protection, less protection from hasty, unconsidered change than principles of
governmental organization.”
Justice Werdegar explains that “just as an amendment of sufficient scope to a single principle as
important as judicial power can be a revision . . . so too, in my view, can be an amendment of
sufficient scope to a foundational principle of individual liberty in our free society, such as equal
protection.”
The critical question, as she would pose it, “is whether Proposition 8 accomplishes a change of
sufficient scope in a foundational principle of individual liberty as to amount to a constitutional
revision.”
Justice Werdegar concludes that although Proposition 8 impinges upon the right of same-sex
couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the
family relationship of opposite-sex couples, the measure “has not brought about such a broad
change in the principle of equal protection as to amount to a constitutional revision.” She
emphasizes that “all three branches of state government continue to have the duty, within their
respective spheres of operation, today as before the passage of Proposition 8, to eliminate the
remaining important differences between marriage and domestic partnership, both in substance and
perception.”
JUSTICE MORENO’S CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Moreno concludes that Proposition 8 is not a
lawful amendment to the California Constitution because it alters the equal protection clause to
deny same-sex couples equal treatment, explaining that “requiring discrimination against a minority
group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that
underlies our California Constitution and thus ‘represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in
the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a “revision” of the
state Constitution rather than a mere “amendment” thereof.’ ” Justice Moreno points out that the
equal protection clause is “inherently countermajoritarian” and observes that “there is no
‘underlying’ principle more basic to our Constitution than that the equal protection clause protects
the fundamental rights of minorities from the will of the majority.”
In Justice Moreno’s view, “[d]enying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly
be described as a ‘narrow’ or ‘limited’ exception to the requirement of equal protection,” but adds
that “even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and
thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment . . . . Promising equal treatment to some
is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all. Promising treatment that is
almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored
minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from
recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights.”
6
Justice Moreno declares that “Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of
voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution
to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification.” He states that
“[t]he rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to
marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional
rights of all disfavored minorities” and “weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of
fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”
-#-
7
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
BAD CBC this is NOT funny at all!
Canadian TV rapped for Obama assassination joke
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's public broadcaster was wrong to show a skit that joked about the possible assassination of U.S. President Barack Obama and suggested he could be a thief, an industry panel ruled on Monday.
The New Year's Eve "Bye Bye" comedy program -- shown by the French-language Radio Canada network -- generated more than 200 complaints. In one segment, two hosts discussed Obama's election in November 2008. Obama, who took office in January, is the first black U.S. president.
"We're not racists. It will be good to have a Negro in the White House. It will be practical. Black on white, it will be easier to shoot him," one of the show's hosts remarked.
The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council said it found "nothing redeeming in the allegedly comedic notion that an American president should be shot, still less that this would be easier to achieve because of the color of the president's skin. It was a disturbing, wounding, abusive racial comment."
The show also featured an interview with an actor pretending to be Obama. The host said, "The blacks, you all look alike," and then warned viewers to hide their purses.
The council said the comments and sketches breached regulations, adding they went "too far in terms of Canadian broadcast standards."
The producers of the show denied the skits had been racist, saying they had meant to mock the characters making the offensive remarks.
Complaints about Radio Canada are usually handled by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). In this case the CRTC asked the council -- which deals with commercial channels and has more experience in handling such complaints -- for advice.
The CRTC, which is due to conduct its own probe into the show, does not have the power to fine Radio-Canada but can issue a public reprimand.
A spokeswoman for the commission said such reprimands could cause problems for networks when it came time for them to seek renewal of their broadcasting license. Radio-Canada is due to apply for a license renewal in 2011.
Polls regularly show that Canadians like Obama far more than they do their own leaders. Tens of thousands turned up to cheer him when he made a brief visit to Ottawa in February. A spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy said she did not know whether the White House had complained about the show.
(Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Peter Galloway and Frances Kerry)
Sunday, May 24, 2009
email to findlaw.com about a bad reference
Is Gender Based Abortion Legal? Swedish Court Says Women Can Get As you can see in the article the headline stated that a Swedish Court The word court should not have been used. If you look at the original Thank you |
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Good news for Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.
Référence : Prochains jugements sur demandes d'autorisation Date : 19 mai 2009
|
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/news_release/2009/09-05-19.2a/09-05-19.2a.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ‑‑ JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS
OTTAWA, 2009-05-19. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. EDT ON THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009. THIS LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995‑4330
COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA ‑‑ PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION
OTTAWA, 2009-05-19. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA ANNONCE QUE JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION D’APPEL SUIVANTES LE JEUDI 21 MAI 2009, À 9 H 45 HAE. CETTE LISTE EST SUJETTE À MODIFICATIONS.
SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA (613) 995‑4330
COMMENTS/COMMENTAIRES: comments@scc-csc.gc.ca
Note for subscribers:
The summaries of the cases are available at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca:
Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information, type in the Case Number and press Search. Click on the Case Number on the Search Result screen, and when the docket screen appears, click on “Summary” which will appear in the left column.
Alternatively, click on
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2009/09-05-19.2a/09-05-19.2a.html
Note pour les abonnés :
Les sommaires des causes sont affichés à l’adresse http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca :
Cliquez sur « Dossiers », puis sur « Renseignements sur les dossiers ». Tapez le no de dossier et appuyez sur « Recherche ». Cliquez sur le no du dossier dans les Résultats de la recherche pour accéder au Registre. Cliquez enfin sur le lien menant au « Sommaire » qui figure dans la colonne de gauche.
Autre façon de procéder : Cliquer sur
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/news_release/2009/09-05-19.2a/09-05-19.2a.html
1. Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave) (32975)
2. Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave) (33114)
32975 Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada and Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Charter of Rights - Freedom of expression - Civil procedure - Appeals - Discontinuance of proceedings - Interlocutory judgments - Whether a judgment refusing a discontinuance is a final judgment giving rise to an appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal - Whether a party’s right to discontinue legal proceedings is as fundamental as its right to institute them - Whether s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes protection of the media’s confidential sources - Whether media outlet may be forced to disclose confidential sources by a court, given that an appeal as of right may not exist.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities serves as the backdrop to this application.
In 2005, the Attorney General of Canada instituted claims in the amount of 63 million dollars against various defendants, including the Respondent Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs (“Polygone”), seeking the resolution of certain contracts as well as the reimbursement of sums paid pursuant to those contracts. In its defence, the Respondent Polygone sought to prove that the federal government had knowledge of the affair prior to 2002, and that as a result, the government’s claims were prescribed.
At Polygone’s request, the Superior Court ordered that 22 individuals, mostly current and former government employees, state in writing and under oath, whether they had given any information to the Applicant Globe and Mail’s reporter on the issue. The Globe and Mail filed a motion in revocation of judgment to have that order set aside.
At the hearing before the Superior Court on the motion in revocation, the Globe and Mail objected to certain questions directed at its journalist. The Superior Court dismissed the objections. The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal on the issue. Rather than have its journalist answer the questions posed by Polygone in the motion in revocation proceedings, the Globe and Mail opted to discontinue those proceedings. The Superior Court refused to allow the discontinuance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
| November 5, 2008 Superior Court of Quebec (de Grandpré J.) |
| Discontinuance of proceedings denied |
|
|
|
|
| December 15, 2008 Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal) (Otis, Forget and Côté JJ.A.) Neutral citation: 2008 QCCA 2464 |
| Appeal dismissed |
|
|
|
|
| January 21, 2009 Supreme Court of Canada |
| Application for leave to appeal filed |
|
|
|
|
32975 Globe and Mail, une division de CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. c. Procureur général du Canada et Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Qué.) (Civile) (Sur autorisation)
Charte des droits - Liberté d’expression - Procédure civile - Appels - Désistement d’instance - Jugements interlocutoires - Un jugement qui refuse un désistement est-il un jugement final donnant naissance à un appel de plein droit à la Cour d’appel? - Le droit d’une partie de se désister d’une instance judiciaire est-il aussi fondamental que son droit de l’introduire? - L’article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés comprend-il la protection des sources confidentielles des médias? - Un média peut-il être contraint par un tribunal de divulguer des sources confidentielles, vu qu’il n’existe peut-être pas d’appel de plein droit?
La Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires sert de toile de fond de la présente demande.
En 2005, le procureur général du Canada a introduit des demandes de 63 millions de dollars contre divers défendeurs, y compris l’intimée Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs (« Polygone »), sollicitant la résolution de certains contrats et le remboursement de sommes payées en vertu de ces contrats. Dans sa défense, l’intimée Polygone a cherché à prouver que le gouvernement fédéral avait connaissance de l’affaire avant 2002, de sorte que les demandes du gouvernement étaient prescrites.
À la demande de Polygone, la Cour supérieure a ordonné à 22 personnes, surtout des employés et des ex-employés du gouvernement, de déclarer par écrit et sous serment, s’ils avaient communiqué au journaliste du demandeur Globe and Mail des renseignements sur la question. Le Globe and Mail a présenté une requête en révocation de jugement pour faire annuler cette ordonnance.
À l’audience en Cour supérieure sur la requête en révocation, le Globe and Mail s’est opposé à certaines questions posées à son journaliste. La Cour supérieure a rejeté ces objections. La Cour d’appel a refusé d’accorder l’autorisation d’appel sur la question. Plutôt que de faire en sorte que son journaliste réponde aux questions posées par Polygone dans la requête en révocation, le Globe and Mail a choisi de se désister de cette instance. La Cour supérieure a refusé d’autoriser le désistement. La Cour d’appel a rejeté l’appel.
| 5 novembre 2008 Cour supérieure du Québec (juge de Grandpré) |
| Désistement d’instance rejeté |
|
|
|
|
| 15 décembre 2008 Cour d’appel du Québec (Montréal) (juges Otis, Forget et Côté) Référence neutre : 2008 QCCA 2464 |
| Appel rejeté |
|
|
|
|
| 21 janvier 2009 Cour suprême du Canada |
| Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée |
|
|
|
|
33114 Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada and Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Quebec Charter - Freedom of expression - Freedom of the press - Confidentiality of media sources - Civil procedure - Admissibility of evidence - Exclusion of evidence disclosing identity of confidential source - Does s. 3 of the Quebec Charter protect the media’s right to the confidentiality of its sources? - Does art. 2858 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with s. 3 of the Quebec Charter, require a judge to exclude or reject evidence disclosing the identity of a confidential source, the admission of which would tend to bring the administration of justice in to disrepute? - Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 3 - Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2858.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities serves as the backdrop to this application. In 2005, the Attorney General of Canada instituted claims in the amount of 63 million dollars against various defendants, including the Respondent Polygone, seeking the resolution of certain contracts as well as the reimbursement of sums paid pursuant to those contracts. The trial in this civil recovery action is scheduled to begin in October 2009 before the Superior Court of Quebec. In its defence, Polygone seeks to prove that the federal government had knowledge of the affair prior to 2002, and that as a result, the government’s claims are prescribed. Specifically, Polygone seeks to prove that a government employee had leaked information to a journalist employed by the Applicant, Globe and Mail, prior to the year 2002. At Polygone’s request, the Superior Court ordered that certain individuals, mostly current and former government employees, state in writing and under oath, whether they had given any information to the Globe and Mail’s reporter on the issue. The Globe and Mail filed a motion in revocation of judgment to have that order set aside. It argued, among other things, that the order violated its right to freedom of expression, particularly its right to protect its confidential sources. At the hearing before the Superior Court on the motion in revocation, the Globe and Mail objected to certain questions directed at its journalist on the basis that his sources were confidential. The Superior Court dismissed the objections. It is from this decision that the Globe and Mail now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.
| August 26, 2008 Superior Court of Quebec (de Grandpré J.) |
| Objections formulated during cross‑examination dismissed |
|
|
|
|
| April 6, 2009 Supreme Court of Canada |
| Application for leave to appeal and motion for extension of time filed |
|
|
|
|
| April 30, 2009 Supreme Court of Canada |
| Motion to expedite application for leave to appeal granted |
|
|
|
|
33114 Globe and Mail, une division de CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. c. Procureur général du Canada et Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc.
(Qc) (Civile) (Sur autorisation)
Charte québécoise - Liberté d’expression - Liberté de presse - Confidentialité des sources médiatiques - Procédure civile - Admissibilité de la preuve - Exclusion de la preuve révélant l’identité d’une source confidentielle - L’article 3 de la Charte québécoise protège-t-il le droit d’un média à la confidentialité de ses sources? - L’article 2858 du Code civil, en corrélation avec l’art. 3 de la Charte québécoise, oblige-t-il le juge à exclure ou rejeter une preuve qui révèle l’identité d’une source confidentielle, dont l’admission tendrait à déconsidérer l’administration de la justice? - Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12, art. 3 - Code civil du Québec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, art. 2858.
La Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires sert de toile de fond de la présente demande. En 2005, le procureur général du Canada a introduit des demandes de 63 millions de dollars contre divers défendeurs, y compris l’intimée Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs (« Polygone »), sollicitant la résolution de certains contrats et le remboursement de sommes payées en vertu de ces contrats. Le procès dans cette affaire en recouvrement au civil doit commencer en octobre 2009 en Cour supérieure du Québec. Dans sa défense, Polygone cherche à prouver que le gouvernement fédéral avait connaissance de l’affaire avant 2002, de sorte que les demandes du gouvernement sont prescrites. Plus particulièrement, Polygone cherche à prouver qu’un employé du gouvernement a divulgué des renseignements à un journaliste au service du demandeur, le Globe and Mail, avant l’année 2002. À la demande de Polygone, la Cour supérieure a ordonné à certaines personnes, surtout des employés et des ex-employés du gouvernement, de déclarer par écrit et sous serment, s’ils avaient communiqué au journaliste du Globe and Mail des renseignements sur la question. Le Globe and Mail a présenté une requête en révocation de jugement pour faire annuler cette ordonnance. Il a plaidé, entre autres, que l’ordonnance violait son droit à la liberté d’expression, particulièrement son droit de protéger ses sources confidentielles. À l’audience en Cour supérieure sur la requête en révocation, le Globe and Mail s’est opposé à certaines questions posées à son journaliste, plaidant que ses sources étaient confidentielles. La Cour supérieure a rejeté ces objections. C’est de cette décision que le Globe and Mail sollicite maintenant l’autorisation d’appel à cette Cour.
| 26 août 2008 Cour supérieure du Québec (juge de Grandpré) |
| Objections formulées pendant le contre-interrogatoire rejetées |
|
|
|
|
| 6 avril 2009 Cour suprême du Canada |
| Demande d’autorisation d’appel et requête en prorogation de délai déposées |
|
|
|
|
| 30 avril 2009 Cour suprême du Canada |
| Requête visant à accélérer la procédure de demande d’autorisation d’appel accueillie |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Ok i am Mad at The Supreme Court of Canada!
This will come up again &
again!
Supreme Court of Canada won't hear Afghan detainee case
Last Updated: Thursday, May 21, 2009 | 11:14 AM ET Comments122Recommend45
CBC News
The Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday it will not hear arguments that captives handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops should be protected by the Charter of Rights.
As is its custom, the court did not give reasons for its decision.
The issue sparked controversy two years ago when published reports detailed claims from Afghan prisoners who said they were tortured at the hands of local authorities after being handed over by Canadian soldiers.
Lawyer Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa professor, has acted as co-counsel for Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which brought the case.
"We've seen absolutely zero evidence that Afghanistan has stopped torturing detainees," Attaran said Wednesday.
Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said a soldier standing on Canadian soil is clearly prohibited from handing over a captive to someone who may torture that prisoner.
"Why should that be any different simply because the soldier has left the country? They're still a Canadian soldier operating according to Canadian law, deployed in Afghanistan pursuant to a decision of the Canadian Parliament."
The Federal Court of Canada, in a decision upheld on appeal, ruled the charter does not automatically follow soldiers overseas and that foreign prisoners must rely on international law.
More than 2,800 Canadian soldiers are serving in Afghanistan as part of the NATO mission.