Skip to main content

Appeal Court appoints special five-judge panel to reconsider Timminco ruling.

Comstock/Getty Images

An Ontario superior court judge has dismissed a charter challenge filed against a practice that saw a handful of provincial police officers pose as journalists.

Three major media organizations went to court last May to argue that the practice violated the constitution by having a chilling effect on freedom of the press.

But in a decision released last month, Justice Benjamin Glustein said that no such practice truly existed.

Story continues below advertisement

The cases at the heart of the charter challenge centred on police efforts to gather information during high-profile protests by aboriginal groups.

Philip Tunley, the lawyer representing the media group, says Glustein's ruling was disappointing and did not address the main questions around freedom of expression.

He says the CBC, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada are considering whether or not to appeal the ruling.

The media organizations argued that the practice of impersonating reporters could place genuine journalists at risk by raising suspicions about who they are, as well as limiting the ability to develop trusting relationships with key sources.

Tunley said Glustein's argument was particularly technical and focused on each individual point raised during the hearing rather than addressing the overarching questions they raised.

The application was centred around specific cases in which police officers impersonated reporters, and Glustein's ruling focuses on why each individual instance doesn't represent a widespread practice.

"What he never does is to sort of sit back and ask the question that we said was important, which was ... are sources likely to believe that there is a practice from all of the reported incidents," Tunley said in a telephone interview.

Story continues below advertisement

The application filed by the media organizations cited the cases as proof provincial police pose as members of the media to gather information as part of a criminal investigation.

In one notorious case, two officers filmed protesters at Ipperwash provincial park in 1995 and, when asked who they worked for, named the fictitious United Press Associates. Police confirmed the deception years later at a public inquiry into the fatal police shooting of an aboriginal protester.

In another case, an officer keeping an eye on protesters during an aboriginal Day of Action on Tyendinaga Mohawk territory in 2007 admitted he had pretended to be part of the media, court heard.

Glustein's decision, however, dismissed the argument.

"There is no practice of plainclothes OPP officers engaged in media-presence surveillance to identify themselves as journalists if questioned as to their identity," the decision reads. "Consequently, it cannot be considered a 'real' practice and, as such, I do not address the theoretical constitutional validity of the issue."

The lawyer representing the three respondents in the case — the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police — could not be reached for comment.

Story continues below advertisement

Attorney General spokesman Brendan Crawley issued a statement saying that "the Ontario Provincial Police used investigative techniques that were in accordance with the law and do not infringe freedom of expression under the Charter." He declined to offer further comment on the ruling since a decision to appeal is still pending.

Tunley said that decision will be made before the end of the month.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter