Residents challenge Springfield’s ban on recording council meetings

The municipal office for the RM of Springfield is pictured on June 13, 2023. (Dan Timmerman/CTV News Winnipeg)

Four residents are taking the RM of Springfield to court, arguing their municipal government doesn’t have the legal right to ban the public from recording council meetings.

Daniel Page, Karen Lalonde, Janet Nylen and Gloria Romaniuk are listed as applicants in a legal brief filed this week in the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba. The four have retained the help of a constitutional lawyer.

“The case concerns the recording of public meetings of municipalities and its importance to freedom of expression,” reads a copy of the legal brief filed in court and sent to media in a news release.

The court filing alleges in December 2024, the RM of Springfield passed a bylaw which allows the media to record audio and video from meeting proceedings, as long as arrangements are made with the CAO at least 48 hours in advance.

However, the filing claims the bylaw does not adequately define who is considered “the media” and that it does not explicitly prohibit recordings by the public.

The filing seeks a court declaration that the public has a right to record the public meetings provided it does not disrupt proceedings.

According to the document, on Feb. 4, a resident attended a council meeting in-person and recorded a delegation on her phone. However, after the mayor referenced the bylaw and told her to put her phone down, the resident refrained from recording.

The following month, the filing said Page — one of the applicants — made a request to the CAO two days in advance to record, but it was denied. It said Page documents meeting proceedings and posts news updates to social media.

The brief claims the municipality is violating the provincial Municipal Act by exercising powers not explicitly conferred on them through bylaws, or their right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The brief argues the municipal government is interfering with freedom of the press, which they say is directed at the activity — newsgathering — rather than determining whether a person fits within the definition of media.

“The applicants submit that the ability to record in this context is an essential part of newsgathering activities,” the legal brief reads. “The ability to record public municipal proceedings and publish them is of immense value to furthering democratic discourse and truth seeking.

“If the ability to record is completely prohibited, it would render the ability to publish and broadcast the news meaningless.”

The brief said the RM of Springfield broadcasts public meetings on Zoom, but only the audio is posted to its official website — often with issues such as omitting speakers when microphones are muted or failing to pick up conversations.

Colleen Draper, the RM’s CAO, told CTV News in an email statement the municipal government is aware of the filing, but cannot comment as if is before the courts.

The RM has not yet replied to the applicants’ brief. None of the allegations have been tested in court.