Constitutional watchdog blasts Ottawa's criminal investigation into Juno journalist
"This isn't a criminal offence...This is weaponizing the law to stop journalism that the government doesn't like. I'm concerned it will chill reporting in the future."
The below analysis is from an X post by Christine Van Geyn, the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Litigation Director.
Learn more about Ottawa’s criminal investigation in Juno News’ journalism and how you can help at DefendJuno.com.
I was disturbed to read the report this morning about a criminal investigation into journalism by Juno News.
The news outlet published a report in March about a former federal Liberal candidate. The news network is now being investigated for a potential breach of s. 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act. This is the same provision that the Canadian Constitution Foundation successfully challenged in 2021 for failing to have a knowledge requirement.
The law carries significant penalties, including a fine up to $50,000 and up to five years in prison. Under the previous version, the legislation did not require that the individual making the false statement be aware that it is false, capturing innocent statements. Thanks to our litigation, that has now changed. The offence now only captures the publication of statements the publisher knows to be false.
I can't imagine how this offence could be made out by the Juno News reporting. I looked at the report at issue, which you can read here.
The report involves a series of first hand interviews about eye witness account of the behaviour and comments of a former federal Liberal candidate. Some of the interview subjects have been anonymized. It looks like some of the accounts were corroborated, and while not all could be, there were multiple similar accounts which suggest a pattern.
In my view, this weighs in favour of publication being in the public interest. Juno gave the candidate - a public figure - an opportunity to respond, and also gave his wife an opportunity to respond. It is clear in the report that these are allegations. I think the reporting meets the responsible communication standard.
Even if you are of the opinion that there was insufficient corroboration or not enough public interest (and I disagree), this isn't a criminal offence. Reporting, even if imperfect, should not be targeted by government agencies for sanction like this.
This investigation shows the broader problems with the law and with enforcement by Elections Canada. This is weaponizing the law to stop journalism that the government doesn't like. I'm concerned it will chill reporting in the future.
I'll be watching closely to see if the investigation proceeds any further - because if it does, I can't imagine how Elections Canada will prove this report violated the act.
But the investigation itself is punitive, as Juno News will need to retain counsel for this stage.
Absolutely disgusting.
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director,
Canadian Constitution Foundation
Defund the Liberal Party.
Is it time for a national tax revolt?
This is the type of thing that happened in Germany in the 1930's that eventually led to the takeover of government by the National Socialist Party.