Michael Hughes

The appellant Crown authority appealed a decision quashing a search warrant executed at a broadcaster's premises for videotapes of a labour-related vandalism incident that had already been aired.

The majority held that a search warrant for media premises may issue where the statutory requirements are met and the issuing justice balances law-enforcement needs against the media's privacy and news-gathering role, but disclosure of alternative sources, while ordinarily desirable, is not a constitutional precondition.

On the facts, the prior broadcast of the footage, the absence of interference with broadcasting operations, and the reasonableness of the search justified the warrant.

The dissent would have held that searches of press premises infringe freedom of the press and require proof of necessity, proportionality, and minimal impairment under s. 1.

The appellant media organization challenged a warrant authorizing police seizure of videotapes depicting a protest during which a guardhouse was destroyed.

The Supreme Court held that freedom of the press under s. 2(b) of the Charter does not impose additional constitutional preconditions on the issuance of search warrants for media premises, though it informs the reasonableness analysis under s. 8.

The court applied a contextual balancing approach requiring consideration of the media's role as an innocent third party, the effect of the search on news gathering and dissemination, the existence of alternative sources, and the possibility of tailored conditions.

On the facts, the warrant met the statutory requirements and the search was reasonable notwithstanding deficiencies in the affidavit concerning alternative sources.

The appeal was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.