A Manitoba judge has reserved his decision in a case brought forward by residents of the Rural Municipality of Springfield, who are challenging a municipal bylaw they claim prohibits the public from recording open council meetings and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On Thursday, Court of King’s Bench Justice Amiran Kotler heard arguments surrounding the RM of Springfield’s procedural bylaw. The disputed provision permits media to record meeting proceedings—including public hearings—provided arrangements are made with the CAO at least 48 hours in advance, but makes no mention of whether members of the public may do the same. Court heard the legal action was initiated after Daniel Page, a resident of the municipality, requested to record a special council meeting on March 28, 2025, with sufficient notice, but was denied by the CAO on the grounds that he was not a member of the media. A separate individual was also allegedly told by Mayor Patrick Therrien to stop recording a meeting the month prior, with the bylaw cited as justification. “This case is about the ability to record open council meetings,” said constitutional lawyer Darren Leung, who is serving as counsel for Page and three other residents of the RM. Leung argued the bylaw “does not explicitly prohibit recording of open meetings” and that any implied prohibition is contrary to the Municipal Act, which says that a municipality may only act through a bylaw or resolution. He added that if the court does find a prohibition exists, it discriminates without reasonable justification under the Act and violates freedom of expression under the Charter, claiming recording is an “expressive activity.” Court heard that in 2019, the municipality’s bylaw was amended to remove the public’s ability to record meetings and was replaced with a provision that the municipality would provide its own video and audio recordings. That was later scaled back to audio only, which Margaretha Spezzano, lawyer for the municipality, noted already exceeds the legal requirement for the municipality. However, Leung argued that the audio recordings often have issues, such as omitting speakers when microphones are muted or failing to pick up parts of the exchange. “These are just some of the quality issues that Dr. Page is trying to address with creating his own recording to avoid connectivity issues, the technical issues,” Leung said. “That’s why he wants to create a more fulsome and accurate depiction of council meetings.” ‘Purpose to control decorum’ Court also heard Spezzano say that while it’s a ban on recording, it’s not a total ban on all news-gathering activities by the public. “They can listen; they can take notes… They can listen to the audio recording. They can’t make it there in person; they can attend on the Zoom broadcast. They can review the minutes. The list goes on,” Spezzano said. “This is a purpose to control decorum of… the municipality’s meetings, just as the court has its own policies with respect to proceedings and to ensure that the business of the court can move forward." When asked whether the bylaw defines who’s media, Spezzano said, “it’s discretionary” and is up to the CAO, who has been employed with the municipality for 26 years. “There isn’t a criteria [sic] specified in the bylaw, or a definition of media provided in the bylaw.” Court also heard concerns of misinformation and manipulation arising from recordings, the latter of which Leung said is “greatly exaggerated.” “Furthermore, the manipulation of videos is also freedom of expression,” he said, clarifying that Page is not accused of doing such. “It might be discomforting and people might not like it, but it is also an aspect of freedom of expression. And of course, there are civil law remedies, such as defamation, if it rises to that level.” Julie Winter, a government lawyer appearing as an intervener, also argued the case involved a mischaracterization and that individuals aren’t prevented from expressing themselves on matters related to municipal affairs. “In our case, we say the purpose of the legislation is to…protect democratic process by ensuring orders and meetings,” Winter said. “It was not enacted with the purpose of interfering with freedom of expression.” Leung acknowledged that removing a “very disruptive” individual would be reasonable, noting the bylaw addresses disorderly behaviour. The judge said he expects to deliver a decision within the coming months. ‘Transparency in governance’ Page told CTV News the case is about “transparency in governance” and ensuring the public knows what’s happening at council meetings, “especially if you don’t have much local media in your area.” Page said he’s been documenting the municipality’s council meetings on Zoom for around two years, posting recordings to his YouTube channel, PageWizardGLE. “And I’ve been studying the council meetings for longer than that,” he said. Page also posts educational videos on computer science—a field in which he holds a doctorate, court heard. Council at odds Among those in attendance for the hearing were all five council members of the RM of Springfield. Coun. Mark Miller and Coun. Andy Kuczynski both told CTV News outside the courtroom they support allowing members of the public to record council meetings, confirming the meetings don’t always capture every detail. “Local councils in the municipality are the grassroots of our citizens, and we want to ensure that they have transparency, openness, accountability,” Miller said. “I think this is fundamentally safeguarding the rights of individuals to not only come to council, but to record and to understand and maybe to review what was taking place during that particular council meeting.” A review of Tuesday’s RM of Springfield council meeting audio recording reveals that Miller attempted to add a resolution to the agenda calling for the RM to withdraw from the court proceedings. Kuczynski seconded the resolution. “To have something like this before our court case, I think, is reprehensible on your part, and Councillor Kuczynski’s part,” Mayor Patrick Therrien could be heard saying in response. “I’m actually almost disgusted by this.” “It’s a legal matter that can’t be discussed openly because it’s before the King’s Bench court,” he said, adding that council has discussed the legal action in closed session. The resolution was voted down by the remaining three council members. Miller told CTV News the move was an “atrocity to democracy.” “For them to disallow council to move a motion to protect the public purse and to protect the public generality in terms of providing openness and transparency in council is atrocious,” Miller said. Both Coun. Melinda Warren and Coun. Glen Fuhl declined to comment on the case. In an emailed statement, Mayor Therrien also declined to comment, saying it would be prudent to not comment as the case is before the courts. “I would be happy to comment once a decision is handed down,” he added.
