The federal appeals court overturned the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision that upheld a complaint last year accusing Radio-Canada of broadcasting the N-word during chronicle radio.

Federal regulators accused Crown Corporation of unduly offending its audience when the title of a book by Pierre Vallières – which the court found contained an offensive and racist word – was mentioned four times.

This CRTC decision was afflicted with two errors, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in its judgment issued on Thursday.

First, the organization has exceeded its jurisdiction by basing its decision solely on Canadian broadcasting policy and not on the codes of conduct that dictate what may be said on the air.

In addition, the CRTC has failed at all to respect the right to freedom of expression that all broadcasters, including Radio-Canada, are entitled to.

The file was therefore returned to the CRTC so that it could again rule on the merits of the complaint “after having properly considered the impact that its decision might have on Société Radio-Canada’s (SRC) freedom of expression”. Is it in the judgement?

Complaint against a Chronicle

This whole affair started with a radio column that aired during the popular show 15-18. In August 2020, columnist Simon Jodoin presented a piece entitled “Are certain ideas becoming taboo?” title mentioned.

A listener filed a complaint condemning the column’s use of the N-word. After action within Radio-Canada – and an initial rejection of the complaint by its Ombudsman – the file was eventually withdrawn from the CRTC.

In June 2022, he upheld the merits of the complaint, finding that the content being broadcast on the airwaves “contradicts the goals and values ​​of Canadian broadcasting policy”. »

While acknowledging that the N-word was not used in a discriminatory manner, the CRTC still expressed dissatisfaction with the way the comment was handled in the column. He feels that the CBC should have taken all necessary measures to mitigate the word’s impact on audiences, particularly by not repeating it and issuing a clear warning at the beginning of the column.

According to the CRTC, the CBC did not exercise sufficient caution and vigilance in handling the comment, which could have been detrimental to its audience, particularly the black community.

The CBC was ordered to comply with four measures. She acted, but still appealed the decision, arguing that the CRTC had exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to take account of her freedom of expression as guaranteed by the charter. The Attorney General of Canada agreed with his arguments.

In its ruling, the federal court agreed that the CRTC established valid codes of conduct that provide guidelines for what can and cannot be said on the air and that it can sanction violators.

However, the CRTC did not draw any conclusions based on these codes of conduct here, only on the basis of Canadian broadcasting policy – yet it does not have this authority, writes the court.

In addition, the law must be interpreted in accordance with freedom of expression and the journalistic, creative and programmatic independence of broadcasters, she continued.

What the CRTC didn’t do: “The decision makes no mention of the CBC’s freedom of expression,” and the filing in no way suggests that the majority decision-makers were “aware” of their obligation to ensure the CBC’s freedom of expression was guaranteed not be restricted more than necessary.

To see in the video