Resident was prevented from recording a public council meeting
On February 4, 2025, a Springfield resident attended a regular council meeting of the Rural Municipality (RM) of Springfield, Manitoba. Wanting to share information about the meeting with others, the resident began recording the proceedings on a mobile phone.
Mayor Patrick Therrien quickly intervened, stating that recording was not permitted because of a new bylaw. The municipality’s Chief Administrative Officer, Colleen Draper, further explained that only members of the media who had obtained permission at least 48 hours in advance could record council meetings. She advised that the RM would publish its own audio recording within two days.
While members of the public attending in person were prohibited from recording, the Mayor acknowledged that participants attending remotely by Zoom were free to record the meeting themselves.
Residents argued the municipality had no authority to prohibit recordings
Following the incident, lawyers funded by the Justice Centre sent a warning letter to the RM Council explaining that The Municipal Act permits councils to act only through bylaws or resolutions and that no bylaw prohibited members of the public from recording council meetings.
The letter also warned that even if such a bylaw were enacted, it would violate section 2(b) of the Charter, which protects freedom of expression.
The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly recognized recording and broadcasting as forms of protected expression that promote transparency, truth-seeking, and democratic participation.
The resident had not disrupted the meeting in any way. “So long as members of the public record in a non-intrusive manner, RM Council and the Chair have no right to prohibit recording at their meetings,” the letter stated. “We hope that the RM Council considers our warning carefully and acts in a way respectful of Charter rights.”
Four residents asked the Court to protect the right to record public meetings
After the municipality maintained its position, four Springfield residents applied to the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench for judicial review.
The application argues that the Mayor lacked legal authority to prohibit recordings without a valid bylaw and that any bylaw imposing a blanket prohibition on public recording would be unconstitutional.
The applicants also argue that modern technology has changed how citizens gather and share news, and that constitutional protection should apply to the act of recording public meetings rather than only to those with traditional media credentials.
Local resident Daniel Page emphasized the importance of transparency, stating, “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.
Earlier in the case, Mr. Leung stated, “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.
Court reserved its decision
The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench heard the application on April 30, 2026.
The applicants argued that recording public meetings is protected expression under the Charter and is essential to government transparency and democratic accountability. The municipality acknowledged that recording engages freedom of expression but argued that its restriction is lawful and justified.
The Court reserved its decision.