CFE Blog

Welcome to the club, Canada.  On October 18, 2017, we joined the ranks of nearly every other Western democracy when Bill S-231 – the Journalistic Sources Protection Act (“JSPA”) – was finally passed into law, codifying a set of important protections for journalists and their sources. 

It would be nice to think that free speech in Canada is in surpassingly good health, that it can resist attacks from authoritarians and ideologues, that censorship is unthinkable in all but the rarest of circumstances. It would be still nicer to believe that Canadian universities consistently provide the necessary conditions for free expression and free expression, artistic expression included. Unfortunately none of these beliefs is entirely true to fact.

Debate around free expression today is fraught with confusion about true intentions and genuine meanings. Persistent and aggressive challenging of who has the right to define free expression, and an often intentional blurring of that definition can arrest discussion or send argument flying off into hyper-critical and combative corners of social media where it is often scattered and dispersed by bias and filters.

Lawyers have an integral role in the maintenance of the reputation of the administration of justice. However, in situations where the administration of justice is already in disrepute, the role that lawyers can play is not entirely clear. Clients may ask lawyers to provide advice regarding actions that violate the letter of the law in furtherance of making a change to law or policy. In these cases, lawyers’ professional ethics are challenged.

Late this fall, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will decide if graduates of Trinity Western University’s proposed law school can use their TWU law degree to proceed to the bar. The SCC’s decision will have broad and serious implications, well beyond whether TWU’s graduates can practice law.

Six teenage boys dubbed the “Dropbox Six” were recently sentenced to a conditional discharge after pleading guilty to sharing “intimate images” contrary to s. 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.