In view of the foregoing, Defendant asks the Court to allow Société Radio-Canada’s appeal [SRC] and reverse the CRTC’s decisionreads the recording of the Attorney General’s consent motion.

The decision in question is dated 29 that CRTC then blame them CBC for the repeated use of the ‘N-word’ during a radio show and required public broadcasters to issue a public written apology and a plan to prevent such a situation from happening again.

Radio-Canada then apologized for using the “n-word” but appealed the decision CRTCjudging that it had none neither the power nor the jurisdiction to make that decision and had ignores the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Broadcasting Act.

the CRTC made this decision pursuant to Subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, which states that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve to protect, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada and The programming offered by broadcasters should be of high quality.

A provision specific to Radio-Canada adds this The company’s program should reflect both the multicultural and multiethnic nature of Canada.

” However, case law clearly states that this provision does not confer power or jurisdiction [au CRTC]. »

Because no other provision of the law allows it CRTC By regulation to regulate the content broadcast on the airwaves by direct ruling in violation of the objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy under Subsection 3(1) of the Act, it follows that the CRTC’s decision was declared voidreads the Attorney General’s Proposal Minutes.

The Attorney General adds that the CRTC has failed to comment on certain important aspects of those files, in particular the protection afforded by the Broadcasting Act to freedom of expression and the journalistic independence of broadcasters.

The Attorney General protects laws, not organizations

According to Me Martine Valois, associate law professor at the University of Montreal, the Attorney General rarely releases such lengthy filing documents that but given the importance of this case and because constitutional rights such as freedom of the press and freedom of expression are at stakethis time there was a statement of more than 100 pages.

The Attorney General of Canada represents Ottawa and as such often has to defend federal organizations and agencies such as that CRTC. But above all, he has a responsibility to defend Canadian law, explains Mr. Valois.

Ultimately it will be up to the Federal Court of Justice to decide but in all likelihood she should agree to the Attorney General’s overturning orderValois assures me.

If this is the case, the decision of the CRTC will take effect without further proceedings. However, it is not known when the court will respond to the prosecutor’s statement.

As this matter is before the court we cannot comment beyond what we have stated our statement of July 13Radio-Canada’s director of media relations responded on Wednesday afternoon.

We asked for an interview with CRTCbut we have not yet received a response to our query.

recall of facts

The case dates back to August 2020. During a segment of the show the 15-18hosted by Annie Desrochers at the ICI Greater Montreal premiere, host and columnist Simon Jodoin used the ‘n-word’ four times, three times in French and once in English, specifically to name the book White niggers of America by Pierre Vallières and to discuss the dismissal of a Concordia University professor who had cited the work in class.

Irritated by the use of the “n-word”, one listener, Ricardo Lamour, first complained to the Council and the Ombudsman of the French services CBC. He came to the conclusion that the CBC had not violated Radio-Canada’s journalistic standards and practices in connection with this column.

Mr Lamour therefore finally turned to the CRTC to obtain a review of the Ombudsman’s decision CBC.

It should be noted that the Attorney General’s opinion is not intended to comment on the use of the “n-word”, but to know whether the CRTC was authorized to make such a decision with respect to Radio-Canada.

” The Attorney General does not claim that Radio-Canada’s broadcast of a chronicle repeating the “N-word” was acceptable. He supports rather than CRTC have committed errors of law and jurisdiction which justify the annulment of the contested decision. »

The “N-word” underlying this dispute conjures up centuries of slavery, racial segregation and discrimination against people of African descent, he wrote. […] But even with questions relating to racism, the administrative courts must observe the limits that the law sets for them.