New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)[2] is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.
Quick Facts New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), Hearing: March 2–3, 1992 Judgment: January 21, 1993 ...
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) | |
---|---|
Hearing: March 2–3, 1992 Judgment: January 21, 1993 | |
Full case name | Arthur Donahoe in his capacity as the Speaker of the House of Assembly v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
Citations | [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319, 1993 CanLII 153 (S.C.C.); (1993), 118 N.S.R. (2d) 181; (1993), 118 N.S.R. (2e) 181; (1993), 100 D.L.R. (4th) 212; (1993), 13 C.R.R. (2d) 1 |
Docket No. | 22457 [1] |
Prior history | APPEAL from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division 1991 CanLII 2529, allowing in part the appellant's appeal from a judgment of Nathanson J., granting the respondent's claim for a declaration of a right of access pursuant to s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to televise the proceedings of the House of Assembly. |
Ruling | Appeal allowed |
Holding | |
Parliamentary privileges are a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to members of the House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | McLachlin J, joined by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci JJ |
Concurrence | Lamer CJ |
Concurrence | La Forest J |
Concurrence | Sopinka J |
Dissent | Cory J |
Stevenson J took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Close