WINNIPEG, MB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a legal brief has been filed with the Court of King’s Bench in Winnipeg challenging the Rural Municipality of Springfield’s prohibition on recording public council meetings.
The case centres around a ban on recording public municipal council meetings and argues that modern technology has expanded the traditional definition of media. In an era where anyone with a smartphone can document and share information, the applicants maintain that constitutional protection must focus on the activity of newsgathering rather than narrowly on who qualifies as “media.”
The brief further argues that the mayor of Springfield, Patrick Therrien, acted without lawful authority when he declared that a by-law restricted recording, despite no such by-law existing. Municipal meetings must be open to the public except in limited circumstances.
Local resident and educator Daniel Page, who is also a party to the legal challenge, regularly attends Council meetings and has voiced his opposition to the censorship. “I believe it is essential to have recordings of RM Council meetings for transparency and accountability. This act helps ensure more complete public records exist, whether official or not, and public recordings can be shared to show what actually happened,” he said.
Constitutional lawyer Darren Leung stated, “This case raises a novel issue that has been scarcely addressed by the courts: whether the government can prohibit recording public meetings of elected officials.”
“The court’s decision will set the boundaries of how much government can control the flow of information,” he added.
Prior to the filing, the mayor and council received a warning letter noting that the Municipal Act requires councils to act only through by-law or resolution. The letter cautioned that no by-law was in force prohibiting public recording, and further warned that “a proposed by-law or resolution to completely ban the public from recording meetings would be unconstitutional.”
