New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. V. Nova Scotia (Speaker of The House of Assembly) - Ruling

Ruling

The majority was written by Justice McLachlin with Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Iacobucci concurring.

The court found that although the tradition of curial deference does not cover all activities of a legislative assembly, it includes the privileges of legislative assemblies. This right is necessary to the functioning of that body and should not be set aside lightly. In addition, the majority agrees that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to the house of assembly's privilege because the privilege, including the rights to exclude stranger, is part of the Constitution of Canada. The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 states that the constitution's intention is to establish "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom". Thus, parliamentary privilege cannot be negated by another part of the Constitution. Furthermore, the "Constitution of Canada" in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not meant to be exhaustive and unwritten convention can be part of the constitution.

Justice La Forest, in a separate opinion, agreed with the majority's argument with the exception that the constitutional status of parliamentary privilege inherits from being part of the colony's constitution (pre-dating the confederation) instead of being part of the United Kingdom's constitution.

Chief Justice Lamer, in a separate concurring opinion, ruled that the Court can inquire on the existence, but not the exercise, of parliamentary privilege. He agreed with Justice La Forest's assertion that the privileges enjoyed by Canadian parliament is different from the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Chief Justice Lamer commented that Section Thirty-two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not applicable to the action because section Thirty-Two concerns with the legislation that the provinces have enacted with respect to privileges, not the exercise of it.

Justice Sopinka, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that the practice of legislative assembly is not immune to the Charter of Rights and Freedom and the exercise of parliamentary privilege is subject to Section 32 of the Charter of Rights. On the other hand, he ruled that the limitation of Section 2b of the Charter is a reasonable one justified by Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because its objective is to maintain order and decorum and ensure the smooth functioning of the legislative assembly.