section 316(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A certificate from the Speaker or clerk of a legislative body is conclusive evidence that a defamatory statement was published with the authority of that body.

SECTION WORDING

316(3) For the purposes of this section, a certificate under the hand of the Speaker or clerk of the Senate or House of Commons or the legislature of a province to the effect that the matter that is alleged to be defamatory was contained in a paper published by order or under the authority of the Senate, House of Commons or the legislature of a province, as the case may be, is conclusive evidence thereof.

EXPLANATION

Section 316(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the defence of absolute privilege in cases of defamation. It states that if a matter that is alleged to be defamatory was contained in a paper published by order or under the authority of the Senate, House of Commons or the legislature of a province, as the case may be, a certificate under the hand of the Speaker or clerk of any of these legislative bodies confirming this fact will be conclusive evidence thereof. This means that if an individual is sued for defamation for something they have published in a paper that was either ordered or authorized by a legislative body, they can use this certificate as a defence. The purpose of this section of the Criminal Code is to protect the freedom of expression of those who are involved in parliamentary proceedings, as well as to protect the integrity of the parliamentary process. However, this defence is not absolute and only applies to statements made in the course of legislative proceedings or parliamentary reports. In addition, the defamatory statement must be made in good faith and relate to the discussion of public affairs. Overall, section 316(3) provides a means for those who publish papers on behalf of the government to defend themselves against allegations of defamation if they were acting in the course of their public duties.

COMMENTARY

Section 316(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that provides protection to parliamentary publications from being defamed. The provision essentially offers immunity to publications that are produced under the authority of the Senate, House of Commons or the legislature of a province from being sued for defamation. This provision is essential as it provides indispensable protection to the integrity of parliamentary publications. The provision states that a certificate issued by the Speaker or clerk of the Senate or House of Commons or the legislature of a province, to the effect that the allegedly defamatory material was present in a publication authorized by the body in question, is conclusive evidence of the same. This means that if such a certificate is provided, then the material cannot be challenged as defamatory in the court of law, as it is already deemed to be an official publication of the parliamentary body. This provision is particularly important since parliamentary publications are an essential component of the democratic process, and therefore their integrity and authenticity must be preserved and protected at all costs. These publications consist of, among other things, parliamentary proceedings, debates, and records. The uninterrupted functioning of these parliamentary publications is crucial to the proper functioning of democracy. For example, access to historical parliamentary records is critical to understanding the roots of Canadian democracy. Without adequate protections against defamatory lawsuits, individuals and entities could potentially undermine the historical and contemporary significance of these parliamentary records through defamation lawsuits. Such proceedings may have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and debate among parliamentarians and suppress the democratic process itself. This is why Section 316(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is so important. It provides the necessary protection from defamatory lawsuits in relation to parliamentary publications, thus ensuring the integrity of parliamentary debates and proceedings, and thereby preserving our democracy. However, while this provision offers vital protection to parliamentary publications, it is not absolute immunity, and there are still some exceptions. For instance, the protection offered by this provision is with respect to a publisher being sued for defamation; it does not offer protection to the publisher with respect to potential criminal charges. In other words, a publisher may still be liable for a criminal offense, such as hate speech or incitement to violence, for instance. In conclusion, Section 316(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision that facilitates the functioning of Canadian democracy. It protects parliamentary publications from being subjected to defamatory lawsuits, thus ensuring the continued operation of parliamentary proceedings and debates. This provision is a fundamental protection for the process of democracy in Canada and is indispensable to the functioning of the country as a modern democracy.

STRATEGY

Section 316(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a defence to defamation claims when the alleged defamatory statement was contained in a paper published by order or under the authority of a legislative body. This section is of particular importance to journalists, as they often report on the proceedings of legislative bodies and may face defamation claims arising from their reporting. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, the following strategic considerations should be kept in mind: 1. Establishing that the publication was authorized: To avail of the defence under section 316(3), it is necessary to establish that the alleged defamatory statement was contained in a paper that was published by order or under the authority of a legislative body. This requires demonstrating that the publication was authorized and issued by the relevant legislative body. This may involve obtaining a certificate under the hand of the Speaker or clerk of the legislative body in question, which certifies that the publication was authorized. 2. Adhering to journalistic standards: While section 316(3) may provide a defence to defamation claims in some cases, journalists should not rely solely on this defence and should take care to adhere to journalistic standards. This includes verifying information before publication, using reliable sources, and ensuring that statements are fair and accurate. 3. Making corrections and retractions: Even if a publication is authorized by a legislative body, it may still contain errors or inaccuracies that could give rise to defamation claims. When errors are brought to their attention, journalists should consider making corrections or retractions to correct the record and mitigate any harm caused. 4. Considering other relevant defences: While section 316(3) may provide a defence in some cases, it is not the only defence available to journalists facing defamation claims. Other relevant defences may include the defence of fair comment, the defence of responsible communication on a matter of public interest, and the defence of privilege. In light of these considerations, some strategies that could be employed when dealing with section 316(3) include: 1. Obtaining a certificate from the relevant legislative body: To establish that a publication was authorized, journalists may need to obtain a certificate under the hand of the Speaker or clerk of the relevant legislative body. This can help to provide evidence in support of the defence under section 316(3). 2. Adhering to journalistic standards: To reduce the risk of facing defamation claims, journalists should take care to adhere to journalistic standards and avoid making statements that could be construed as defamatory. This includes verifying information, using reliable sources, and ensuring that statements are fair and accurate. 3. Making corrections and retractions as necessary: Even if a publication is authorized by a legislative body, errors and inaccuracies can still give rise to defamation claims. When errors are brought to their attention, journalists should consider making corrections or retractions to mitigate any harm caused. 4. Exploring other relevant defences: While section 316(3) may provide a defence in some cases, it is not the only defence available to journalists facing defamation claims. Journalists should consider exploring other relevant defences, such as the defence of fair comment or the defence of responsible communication on a matter of public interest, in addition to section 316(3). In conclusion, section 316(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a defence to defamation claims in certain circumstances. While this defence can be useful to journalists, it is important to keep in mind the need to adhere to journalistic standards, make corrections and retractions as necessary, and explore other relevant defences. By doing so, journalists can reduce the risk of facing defamation claims and protect their right to report on matters of public interest.