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.
