By continuing to make ethical decisions following complaints against Quebecor’s media, the Quebec Press Council (CPQ) is violating their right not to be associated with them and damaging their reputation, their lawyer argued Thursday. For its part, the CPQ maintains that the latter seek to interfere with its freedom of expression with their lawsuit.
“Each time the CPQ takes up a complaint, it imposes on us its process, its guide and the subjective and arbitrary interpretation that it makes of it, it imposes on us its values and its opinion of what constitutes good journalism. We do not accept that, ”said Mr.e François Fontaine, who represents Quebecor’s media.
Lawyers for both parties presented their closing arguments on Thursday before Judge Bernard Jolin. The Journal of Montreal and Groupe TVA — who have not been members of the CPQ since 2010 — want the Media Honor Court to stop making decisions about them and are demanding compensation of nearly $428,000 for damage to their reputation.
Quebecor media do not question the very existence of the CPQ, but rather the process for handling public complaints against Quebec media. “Those who want to submit their journalistic behavior to CPQ scrutiny can do so — even non-members. But we do not accept that, ”underlines Me Fountain. The CPQ violates their fundamental right to be free “not to associate”, enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, argues the lawyer.
For its part, the CPQ finds it hard to understand the position of the media at Quebecor, since during the years when the media company was a member of the court of honor, it did not express any discomfort with this process.
“The CPQ has taken steps in good faith to modify things to satisfy them and that they become members again after their departure. The fact of running after the plaintiffs shows that the CPQ had no intention of forcing them,” argues M.e Lahbib Chetaibi, who represents the private non-profit organization.
The lawyer also recalled that no CPQ regulation or law required Quebec media to be members of the CPQ. Membership — which involves a contribution and participation in the complaint handling process — is voluntary, and the CPQ has always defended this.
Me Chetaibi refutes the idea that the CPQ imposes “ideological conformity” on Quebecor media by continuing to process complaints against them according to its ethics guide. “No evidence has been adduced by [Québecor] that they were forced to adhere to values contradictory to their own. »
Freedom of expression
On the other hand, by asking the court to permanently prevent the CPQ from rendering any decision in connection with a complaint against one of Quebecor’s media, the latter are rather seeking to interfere with the organization’s freedom of expression, according to Ms.e Lahbib Chetaibi.
“We express our freedom of expression by rendering our decisions […] Freedom of expression can take all sorts of forms according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and giving it that way, through decisions, is a form like any other protected by the Charter. »
The CPQ is not asking for immunity, he added, adding that it would assume its responsibilities if it exceeded the limits. “If Quebecor — or anyone else — feels that a decision has damaged their reputation, they have the right to go to court. »
Quebecor’s media do not share this opinion, pointing out that there is a nuance between expressing one’s opinion by commenting on an article and taking up a “subjective complaint” from the public. While he does not question the very existence of the CPQ, understanding that when it was created in 1973, there could have been threats of provincial legislation that justified the community’s desire to regulate itself with this process, Mr.e Fontaine believes that the contours of freedom of the press have since been “profusely” drawn by the courts.
“If members of the CPQ want to comment on our articles in open letters, public forums, they are free to do so. But we do not accept that they become a court and render decisions in a litigation context. »
The CPQ defends itself, specifying that it has done everything for a few years so that there is no confusion on the part of the public about its role as a court of honor.
Defamation
Each time it renders a decision regarding Quebecor’s media, the CPQ places them at risk of damage to their reputation, and the Sabbagh and Larocque decisions, rendered in 2018, materialized this risk, support Me Fountain.
In the first decision, the CPQ severely blamed The Journal of Montreal for its front page of May 4, 2017 and an article in this same edition which focused on the floods in the west of Montreal. In the second, columnist Richard Martineau was singled out for having failed “in his duty of rigor of reasoning” by questioning the definition of a child soldier in a column on the Omar Khadr affair.
“There is no graver accusation against a media than to claim that this media invents news. And that’s what the CPQ is doing in Sabbagh, falsely, “said Me Fountain. He argues that the CPQ botched its investigation into Ms.me Sabbagh, because he never got all the information available to unravel the case. “These decisions of the CPQ hurt the media and the journalists who suffer from them. [Elles] have an impact on their credibility”, he indicates to justify the damages claimed.
Me Chetaibi argues that, on the contrary, the plaintiffs never demonstrated a “lowering of self-esteem” following the decisions of the CPQ. He also recalls that in his prior testimony, Dany Doucet, the editor-in-chief of Montreal Journalreplied that he had received no comments or complaints from the public in the wake of the Sabbagh or Larocque decisions.
The pleadings being over, Judge Jolin must now deliberate before rendering his verdict in “a few weeks”.