Advertisements in the name of freedom of expression

ADVERTISEMENTSINTHENAMEOFFREEDOMOFEXPRESSION

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDMARIE-MICHÈLEMCDUFF*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

InAdbustersMediafoundationv.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation,[2009CanLII
148(BCCA)]theCourtofAppealforBritishColumbiaallowedtheappeal
challengingtheorderofJusticeEhrckeoftheSupremeCourtofBritishColumbia
strikingoutthestatementofclaimunderRule19(24)oftheRulesofCourt(the
Rules)anddismissingtheactionagainstGlobalTelevisionNetworkInc.andGlobal
CommunicationsLimited(collectively“Global”).Theappellantalsochallengesthe
refusaltojointheCanadianBroadcastingCorporation(hereinafterCBC)andthe
CanadianRadio-TelevisionandTelecommunicationsCommission(CRTC)as
partiestotheaction.OnlytheorderregardingthejoinderofCBCisnowbeing
challengedinthisappeal.
Facts
TheappellantaskedGlobalandCBCtobroadcastadvertisementspresenting
variousindividualmessages,butthathadasacommonthemeacriticismofthe
influenceofthemedia,especiallythetelevisionmedia,onsociety.Globalrefusedto
runtheadsandtheCBCagreedtorunonlysomeofthembutnotatthetimes
desiredbytheappellant.Adbustersclaimedthattheselectiverefusaltoairthe
advertisementsconstitutedaviolationofitsrighttofreedomofexpressionunders.
2(b)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms(theCharter).TheCharter
guaranteescertainpoliticalandcivilrightsagainstgovernmentaction,whetherthose
actionsoccuratthemunicipal,provincialorfederallevel.Adbustersassertedthat
bothGlobalandCBCwere“governmentbodies”forthepurposesoftheCharter
whentheyrefusedtobroadcastAdbuster’sadvertisements.Theappellantargued
thatboththeCBCandGlobalaresubjecttotheCharterbecausetheyimplement
governmentbroadcastingpolicyandbecausetheycontrolexpressiononthe
airwaves,whichisapublicspace.

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.Marie-MichèleMcduffisan
articlingstudentwiththefirm.PublishedinaJuneissueofWorldMediaLawReport.Publication
328.064.

2

Law
WhileitiswellestablishedthattheCharterappliestoallactsofgovernment,private
orotherwise,CanadiancourtshavealsorecognizedthattheChartermayapplyto
non-governmentalentitiesincertaincircumstances.Thetesttodeterminewhethera
privateentitycanbesubjectedtotheCharterisbasedonthatentity’sconduct.It
mustbefoundthattheconductoftheentityinquestionisgovernmentalinnature.In
attemptingtoclassifytheconductofanentityinagivencase,itisimportanttoknow,
first,whetheritisagovernmentalbody,andsecond,whethertheconducttobe
subjectedtoCharterscrutinyissimilartothatofagovernmentbody.

R.19(24)providesthatatanystageoftheproceedingsthecourtmayordertobe
struckoutoramendedthewholeoranypartofanendorsement,pleading,petitionor
otherdocumentonthegroundthatitdisclosesnoreasonableclaimordefenceas
thecasemaybe.Attrial,GlobalsoughtanorderpursuanttoR.19(24)onthebasis
thatAdbusters’actiondisclosesnoreasonableclaimbecausetheCharterdoesnot
applytoprivatecorporationssuchasGlobal.Thetrialcourtheldthatthetestunder
R.19(24)wasuncontroversial.Thetestdoesnotproceedonevidence,butratheron
thepleadings.Thetrialcourtfoundthatitwasplainandobviousthattheactionis
doomedtofail.Thequestionthatmustalwaysbedeterminedwithregardto
R.19(24)motionsiswhetheritisplainandobviousthatthepleadingsdiscloseno
reasonablecauseofaction.AsimilardisputewasadjudicatedinAdbustersMedia
foundationv.CanadianBroadcastingCorp.(1995),13B.C.L.R.(3d)265(S.C.)

(Adbusters1.).
Inthatcase,thecourtdismissedtheappellant’sCharterclaimonthegroundsthat,
eventhoughitisaCrownCorporation(i.e.astatutorycreation),CBCwasnotunder
thecontrolofthefederalgovernmentandthereforetherefusaltoruncertainads
wasnotgovernmentactionsubjecttoCharterscrutiny.Thetrialjudgeinthepresent
casestatedthathewasboundbyAdbusters1andoneofthequestionsonappeal
waswhetherthetrialjudgewas,infact,boundbythatruling.InAdbusters1,the
courtbaseditsdecisionsolelyonthecriteriaoftheentity’scontroloftheairwaves,
butdidnotconsidertheentity’simplementationofgovernmentbroadcastingpolicy.It
appearsthatinthepresentcase,thetrialjudgethoughtthattheentity’s
implementationofgovernmentpolicywasconsideredinAdbusterNo.1,andthathe
wasthusboundbythedeterminationinthatcase.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthe
judgederredintreatingtheimplementationofgovernmentpolicytheoryashaving
beensettledbyAdbusters1,andinconsideringhimselfboundbythatdecision.As
such,theCourtofAppealsaidthatthetheorydeservesfurtherconsiderationinthe
courseofthisaction,anditcannotbesaidtobeplainandobviousthatwhenthe
theoryisappliedtothefactsassertedinthepleadingstheactionisboundtofail.

3
Moreover,AdbustershadallegedattrialthatEldrigdev.BritishColumbia(Attorney
General),[1997]3S.C.R.624(Eldridge)addedanewfactorthatmustbe
consideredwhendeterminingwhetheranon-governmentalentitywasperformingan
inherentlygovernmentalactivity.AdbustersclaimedthattheEldridgecriteriais
whethertheprivateentitywasimplementingaspecificgovernmentalpolicyor
program.GlobalsubmittedthatthesepassagesfromEldridgedidnotamounttoa
newtest,anddidn’tprovideabasisfordistinguishingfromAdbusters1.Thetrial
courtagreed,buttheCourtofAppealthoughtthatthetrialjudgederred.TheCourt
saidthatwhethertheEldridgedecisionrepresentsanevolutionofthelawora
simplerestatementisaquestionuponwhichreasonablepersonsmightdiffer,and
shouldnotbedecidedonaR.19(24)application.Itfollowsthatadefinitiveruling
thatAdbusters1wasunaffectedbyEldridgeisnotonethatthetrialjudgeshould
havemade.
TheCourtofAppealdidnotaddresstheappellant’s“publicspace”argument,saying
thatifthedecisiontostrikeisreversedthosequestionscanbeaddressedindue
course.The“publicspace”argumentstatesthattheCharterisapplicableto
broadcasters,whetherprivateorstatutory,becausetheyhavebeengiventhepower
tocontrolexpressioninapublicspace,whichiscontroloverfreedomofexpression
inapublicspace.
Ontheissueofjoinder,theCourtofAppealalsosetasidethetrialcourt’srefusalto
joinCBCasapartybecausethetrialjudgebasedhisdecisiononthefactthatthere
wasnoreasonableclaim.AnunusualcircumstanceinthiscaseisthatCBChad
beennamedasdefendantwhentheoriginalwritofsummonsandstatementofclaim
werefiled.Later,thereweresettlementdiscussionsbetweenAdbustersandCBC,
andAdbustersfiledanoticeofdiscontinuance.Therewerealsodiscussionsabouta
releaseoracovenantnottosue,butnosuchdocumentwaseversignedby
Adbusters.TheCourtofAppealfoundthatthereremainedunresolvedquestions
whichaffectthemotiontojoinandthatajudgeintheSupremeCourtwillhaveto
decidewhetheritisjustandconvenienttoaddCBCinlightofthediscontinuance,
andifnecessary,whethertheappellantgaveCBCacovenantnottosue.

Held,theappealwasgrantedfortheabovereasons.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle

4
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)