New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)
| New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: March 2–3, 1992 Judgment: January 21, 1993 |
|
| Full case name | Arthur Donahoe in his capacity as the Speaker of the House of Assembly v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
| Citations | [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319, 1993 CanLII 153 (S.C.C.); (1993), 118 N.S.R. (2d) 181; (1993), 118 N.S.R. (2e) 181; (1993), 100 D.L.R. (4th) 212; (1993), 13 C.R.R. (2d) 1 |
| Docket No. | 22457 |
| Prior history | APPEAL from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division 1991 CanLII 2529, allowing in part the appellant's appeal from a judgment of Nathanson J., granting the respondent's claim for a declaration of a right of access pursuant to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to televise the proceedings of the House of Assembly. |
| Ruling | Appeal allowed |
| Holding | |
| Parliamentary privileges are a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to members of the House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges. | |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | McLachlin J, joined by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci JJ |
| Concurrence | Lamer CJ |
| Concurrence | La Forest J |
| Concurrence | Sopinka J |
| Dissent | Cory J |
| Stevenson J took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.
New Brunswick Broadcasting Company, carrying on business under the name of MITV, had made a request to film the proceedings of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly with its own camera or one provided by the speaker. However, the Speaker refused television cameras in the House citing parliamentary privilege. New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division against the appellant seeking an order "allowing MITV to film the proceedings of the House of Assembly with its own cameras or by the Speaker providing full television coverage to all members of the television media, or otherwise". The Speaker joined issue. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was joined as a plaintiff at the corporation's request and MITV subsequently withdrew from the proceedings.
Nathanson J of the Trial Division granted the plaintiff's claim, and ordered:
The Speaker appealed to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division. In a 3-2 decision, the appeal was dismissed, but the last four paragraphs of the order were struck out.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, in July 1991 Gonthier J certified the following constitutional questions to be addressed:
In a 6-2 decision, it was held that the answer to Question 1 was No, and it was unnecessary to answer the other two questions.
...
Wikipedia