The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that forcing reporters to reveal their sources has to be done while considering the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' provisions on freedom of the press.
In the case of Ken Peters, a Hamilton Spectator reporter cited for contempt after refusing to identify a source in a civil trial, the trial judge didn't use that test. So Ontario's highest court has overturned the contempt citation.
Here's the actual ruling.
A journalist's contempt conviction for protecting a confidential source was overturned Monday by Ontario's highest court after media lawyers successfully argued there was a constitutional question at stake.
Hamilton Spectator reporter Ken Peters was found in contempt after he refused to reveal a source during a civil trial in 2004.
While all sides at his appeal agreed the trial judge failed to follow procedure in finding Peters in contempt, media lawyers squared off against counsel for the Ontario Attorney General on whether there was a constitutional question at stake.
The media lawyers took the position that the courts should do their best to obtain evidence from other sources before compelling a journalist to reveal a source, in light of freedom-of-speech rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Attorney General argued it wasn't necessary to drag the Constitution into the appeal as contempt and common law, when followed properly, provide the same direction.
On Monday, the Ontario Court of Appeal stopped short of granting blanket protection for reporters who protect sources but did rule that the Charter applies to matters of journalist-informant confidentiality.
"I am unable to accept the submission of the Attorney General for Ontario urging us to decide this case without reference to the Charter,'' the judgment reads.
"Charter rights and values are at stake.''
Because the confidentiality of a journalist's sources implicates the Charter, "every effort should be made to minimize the impact upon those rights and values,'' the judgment added.
The court also agreed that forcing reporters to divulge confidential sources can have a "chilling effect'' on sources and news gathering.
"It is sufficiently apparent that the likely effect of revealing a journalist's confidential source will be to discourage, from coming forward, other potential sources,'' the judgment reads.