Residents fight Springfield’s ban on recording council meetings

Four residents of Springfield say their municipal government doesn’t have the legal right to bar the public from recording council meetings.

Daniel Page, Karen Laronde, Janet Nylen and Gloria Romaniuk have enlisted the help of constitutional lawyers in their legal battle against the rural municipality.

They filed a notice of application in June in which they want the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench to rule the municipality is either violating the provincial Municipal Act or their right to free expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This case concerns the recording of public meetings of municipalities and its importance to freedom of expression,” reads a legal brief filed this week in support of the application.

The application asks the court to declare that the applicants have the right to record the meetings, as long as they don’t disrupt proceedings.

The document claims the chief administrative officer of Springfield, Colleen Draper, told a member of the public who was recording proceedings on Feb. 4, that only media outlets were allowed to record council meetings as long as they obtain approval 48 hours prior to the meeting, as per the RM’s procedural bylaw.

The court filing argues the bylaw does not define who qualifies as media and does not explicitly bar the public from recording.

On Feb. 11, Mayor Patrick Therrien said cellphone recordings of council were prohibited because they are too disruptive, the court filing claims.

The RM has said audio recordings are made public 48 hours after meetings; the court filings argue the quality of the audio is poor.

One of the applicants, Page, has regularly recorded meetings and posts on social media platforms for the purposes of transparency and accountability, the court filings say.

The legal brief claims the RM’s move infringes on freedom of the press and that modern technology has expanded the traditional definition of media.

The latest filing argues that constitutional protections surrounding the freedom of the press must focus on news-gathering, rather than those who may qualify as media personnel, as a result of modern technology such as smartphones.

“The applicants submit that the ability to record… is an essential part of news-gathering activities. The ability to record public municipal proceedings and publish them is of immense value to furthering democratic discourse and truth seeking,” reads the recent legal brief.

“If the ability to record is completely prohibited, it would render the ability to publish and broadcast the news meaningless.”

The RM has yet to reply to the application with court filings of its own.

erik.pindera@freepress.mb.ca