Skip to main content

Vice Media journalist Ben Makuch is seen outside the Ontario Court of Appeal on Feb. 6, 2017.

Colin Perkel/THE CANADIAN PRESS

A Vice Media reporter must give the RCMP the background materials he used for stories on an accused terrorist, Ontario's top court affirmed Wednesday.

In a case that pitted freedom of the press against the ability of police and prosecutors to do their work, the Ontario Court of Appeal said it found no errors in an earlier ruling that went against the Canadian media outlet.

Reporter Ben Makuch, backed by various media and civil rights groups, had fought the RCMP's production order, arguing police use of journalists to further criminal investigations would make sources reluctant to come forward.

Story continues below advertisement

Elizabeth Renzetti: Those in power need to believe 'freedom of the press,' not just say it

However, the Appeal Court said Superior Court Justice lan MacDonnell had been alive to a potential "chilling effect" in this case.

"(MacDonnell) was clearly alive to the concerns about the negative impact of requiring the media to produce material for the police," the Appeal Court said. "He implicitly addressed that concern as it existed on the facts of this case by identifying factors that tended to significantly reduce the potential 'chilling effect'."

Those factors include an absence of a request by Makuch's source for confidentiality — in fact the source was "anxious to tell the world" about his beliefs and conduct, the Appeal Court said.

Vice expressed disappointment with the Appeal Court decision but said it might try to continue its legal battle by seeking leave to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"Simply put, this isn't over," the media outlet said in a statement.

"Vice Media is prepared to do whatever it takes to support and defend our reporter, and our friend, Ben Makuch. His investigations into the complex world of cyber terrorism and digital security matter more now than ever. Ben's work and the vital principle of a free press must be protected."

Story continues below advertisement

The materials in question relate to three stories Makuch wrote in 2014 on a Calgary man, Farah Shirdon, charged in absentia of various terrorism-related offences. The articles were largely based on conversations Makuch had with Shirdon via an online instant messaging app called Kik Messenger.

One story cited Shirdon, 22, as saying from Iraq: "Canadians at home shall face the brunt of the retaliation. If you are in this crusader alliance against Islam and Muslims, you shall see your streets filled with blood."

RCMP want access to Makuch's screen captures of those chats.

In his ruling a year ago, MacDonnell said the screen shots were important evidence in relation to "very serious allegations" and that there was a strong public interest in the effective investigation and prosecution of such allegations.

Makuch has previously said he had published all information relevant to the public.

The Appeal Court rejected Vice arguments that the prosecution should have to prove the information the RCMP wants was essential to its case.

Story continues below advertisement

"No one could accurately assess what the Crown does or does not need to prove its case at trial," the Appeal Court said.

"To suggest that a judge can foreclose police access to relevant evidence otherwise producible in law — because the judge thinks the prosecution does not need the evidence to prove its case — is to seriously confuse the role of those who investigate and prosecute crime with the role of those who adjudicate the cases brought by the prosecution against individuals."

The court did partly side with Vice on unsealing part of the RCMP's materials in the force's demand for Makuch to turn over his information.

Members of the coalition that supported Makuch, including Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Reporters Without Borders and News Media Canada, condemned the ruling for failing to recognize the importance of journalistic source protection.

"If journalists cannot protect their sources, then the information they provide will dry up, leaving Canadians uninformed and democracy impoverished," Tom Henheffer, executive director of the free expression group, said in a statement.

Report an error
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.

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:

  • 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.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter