Politics

Debates body left media 'in the dark' about accreditation criteria, says judge

The commission overseeing leaders' debates during the federal election campaign left media outlets "in the dark" about the criteria for obtaining accreditation to cover the event, a judge says.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, centre, looks on as Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, right, and Green Party leader Elizabeth May discuss a point during the federal leaders debate in Gatineau, Que. on Monday Oct. 7, 2019. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

The commission overseeing leaders' debates during the federal election campaign left media outlets "in the dark" about the criteria for obtaining accreditation to cover the event, a judge says.

Procedural fairness required that notice be given of the rationale for approval or denial as well as an opportunity for applicants to respond, Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn said in written reasons released Thursday.

The Leaders' Debates Commission also provided no description of what was meant by "advocacy" — which left some organizations without permission to cover the debates in person — and there is evidence that some of the news organizations accredited engage in advocacy, he said.

"The Commission provides no rationale why some types of advocacy do not impact accreditation, while others do," Zinn said.

Zinn's reasons follow his Oct. 7 decision to allow Rebel Media and the True North Centre for Public Policy to attend that night's English-language leaders debate in Gatineau, Que.

The two organizations went to court after learning their representatives had been denied access to the debate on the grounds that they engaged in advocacy. The organizations also are seeking a full judicial review of the process followed by the commission, though that matter is still before the court.

In making his Oct. 7 decision, Zinn found the two organizations had satisfied a three-part legal test for granting an injunction giving them accreditation.

The judge noted the commission had told the court that it retained the services of the Parliamentary Press Gallery secretariat to "conduct an initial review of the accreditation applications" and consulted with it as to "whether or not the applicant was an independent media organization, or fell within the purview of an advocacy, research, or activist group."

At no time prior to the decisions did the commission inform applicants that accreditation could or would be denied to those seen as "an advocacy, research, or activist group" and therefore applicants had no advance notice of this requirement, and no opportunity to address it, Zinn said.

"In short, the process adopted by the Commission left the Applicants in the dark as to the basis on which accreditation might be denied, and in making the decision on the last possible day, entailed that they would have no opportunity to respond."

Comments

To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.