International Judgment: Mobilizing Journalist Against their Source is Incompatible with Freedom of the Press Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Sep 30, 2019, at ,02:49 PM Foreign Case Brief Title of the Case – Mobilizing Journalist Against their Source is Incompatible with Freedom of the Press Name of the case – Marie-Maude Denis vs. Marc-Yvan Cote., 2019 SCC 44 (Supreme Court of Canada) Date of Judgment – 27th Sept 2019 Judges: Chief Justice of Canada Wagner, Justice Abella, Justice Moldaver, Justice Karakatsanis, Justice Gascon, Justice Cote, Justice Brown, Justice Rowe and Justice Martin Subject and sections involved – Section 30 (2) of RICA Issue: Whether mobilizing a journalist against his or her source is incompatible with freedom of the press? Fact of the Case: The accused charged with fraud, breach of trust and bribery of officers. Reports by journalist presenting information about investigation into accused that had been obtained from confidential sources. Subpoena served on journalist for purpose of obtaining evidence in support of motion by accused for stay of proceedings. Click Here to Get All Important Judgment of the Month Ratio of the Case: The Supreme Court of Canada held that the freedom of the press criterion will quite often weigh against disclosure of the journalistic source’s identity but that does not mean that it is entirely inflexible and therefore of little assistance. Mobilizing a journalist against his or her sources is incompatible with freedom of the press. As without whistleblowers and other anonymous sources, it would be very difficult for journalists to perform their important mission. Impact of Disclosure on the Journalistic Source and on the Journalist Disclosing information or a document that identifies or is likely to identify a journalistic source will generally have an adverse impact on the source as well as on the journalist. The risk of such an impact is the very reason for the anonymity of journalistic sources, and the purpose of protecting their confidentiality is to ensure that the fear of legal or social sanctions will not deter them from making situations known where such knowledge would be in the public interest. Where a journalist objects to the disclosure of information that identifies or is likely to identify a journalistic source, the court will take into account the impact of the disclosure on the source and on the journalist in light of, among other things, the parties’ submissions on the context of the case and the nature of the information being sought. Public Interest when the court weighs the public interest in the administration of justice against the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of a journalistic source, it must bear in mind that disclosing information that identifies or is likely to identify such a source is an appropriate remedy only where the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. If the court decides in favour of disclosure, it should, so far as possible, keep the disadvantages of its decision to a strict minimum by accompanying the authorized disclosure with any conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, and in particular by limiting the scope of the disclosure.