WINNIPEG, MB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that four residents of Springfield, Manitoba, have filed a court application challenging a municipal policy that bans the recording of public council meetings.
The controversy began after a Springfield resident was told to stop recording a February 4, 2025, meeting of the Rural Municipality of Springfield Council (Council). Mayor Therrien claimed that only “media” are permitted to record public council meetings and that all media must obtain permission from the Chief Administrative Officer 48 hours in advance. According to the mayor’s interpretation, members of the public are not considered “media” and therefore cannot record public meetings at all.
On March 20, 2025, constitutional lawyer Darren Leung sent a warning letter to the Council, advising that the Municipal Act does not authorize the mayor to unilaterally ban the recording of public meetings. He noted that no by-law or resolution prohibited recording. Mr. Leung further warned that banning recording at public council meetings violates attendees’ freedom of expression and other media of communication – protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Despite the legal warning, the Council continued with its blanket ban on recordings at meetings.
Now a Notice of Application has been filed at the Court of King’s Bench in Winnipeg, challenging the ban. The case argues that the mayor lacked legal authority to prohibit recording without a valid by-law, and that if such a by-law exists, it unjustifiably violates residents’ freedom of expression.
Mr. Leung said, “Municipal government should strive for maximum transparency and openness. Unfortunately, we are seeing many municipalities across Canada attempt to limit public participation, especially when it comes to recordings done by residents who want to share important updates with their fellow residents.”
“We are asking the Court to uphold this important right to keep local governments accountable, and to allow the free flow of information,” he added.
Daniel Page, a computer science professor and long-time Springfield resident, has joined the legal action and expressed concern over the Council’s attempt to censor public expression.
“The recording ban is another step in the ongoing erosion of the Rural Municipality of Springfield’s elected mandate for open, transparent and accessible municipal government, a concern echoed to me by residents who regularly attend meetings.”
He added, “I believe the recording ban is part of a continued attempt by the RM of Springfield to control public oversight, limit public participation, and tighten control over how meetings are documented.”
