A Court of Appeal decision last week upholding Ontario’s farm trespass law offers a valuable gift for the future of journalism in Canada: a broad, forward-looking definition of who counts as news media.
The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 created more easily enforceable fines for trespass and interference with animal farming and processing operations. Animal Justice challenged the law as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms free expression protections, arguing it prohibited animal rights activists from conducting undercover exposés inside of animal farming and processing operations.
A Superior Court judge ruled in favour of Animal Justice, invalidating several sections of the Act and associated Ontario Regulation on the basis that these provisions intentionally limited the activists’ freedom of expression and the limitations were not justifiable under Section 1 of the Charter.
The Ontario government appealed.
The Court of Appeal ruled the Act constitutional, finding it minimally impairing and that it included provisions protecting journalistic exposés and whistleblowers.
“What the respondents claim is a right to access the property of others on their own terms and for their own purposes. Freedom of expression does not provide for this,” wrote Justice Bradley W. Miller for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Justice Miller cited the exemptions for journalism and whistleblowing as supporting the constitutionality of the law.
Importantly, for me as one of Canada’s last non-government funded journalists, Justice Miller opines in favour of a broad definition of journalism.
He includes activist-affiliated journalism within his definition of journalism. I have mixed feelings about including subsidiaries of activist organizations under the umbrella of journalism, but appreciate and support broad definitions which protect my ability to continue reporting outside of the government-funded model.
Justice Miller illustrates, as part of the Court’s reasoning, an example of how Animal Justice could avail itself of the legislation’s journalist exception:
The journalist exception – s. 11
[76] The s. 11 exception for journalists must be understood as a qualification, or further specification, of the s. 5(6) prohibition, to be read together with s. 9. It allows for journalists to obtain access to a farm under false pretences if: (i) the false statement used does not express or imply that the journalist has qualifications to do a job safely that the journalist does not have, (ii) the journalist does not cause harm to a person or animal, (iii) the journalist complies with biosecurity protocols, and (iv) the journalist is not asked to leave.
[77] A journalist is defined in the Regulation as someone who works for “news media”. “News media” itself is defined expansively to include “corporations or entities whose primary function is to disseminate information to the general public on a regular basis, whether in writing or by radio, television or similar electronic means.” The definition of news media, and thus of journalist, is not restricted to traditional legacy media. The essential restriction, then, is that the entity on whose behalf the individual is working must have as its primary function the dissemination of information to the general public on a regular basis. Effectively, this establishes a measure of accountability: the journalist is traceable to an ongoing entity whose reputation will be damaged if its journalists conduct themselves in an irresponsible manner. Nothing in the definition disqualifies niche online publications or newsletters. The audience must be general, but the media’s range of interest need not be.
[78] The effect of this provision is to lessen the burden on the respondents’ expression imposed by the Act. It would not seem to be a significant burden on an entity such as Animal Justice to establish a subsidiary whose sole or main purpose was, for example, making regular podcasts or disseminating visual or written content in some other medium. Neither would it be a significant burden on an individual to contract with such an entity for the purpose of producing an undercover exposé. The journalist exception is not particularly exacting.
There are two points I wish to highlight.
One is the discussion of journalistic accountability, of which Justice Miller writes: “The journalist is traceable to an ongoing entity whose reputation will be damaged if its journalists conduct themselves in an irresponsible manner.”
His illustration is forward-looking, emphasizing that “niche online publications or newsletters” may fit within this definition of journalism.
This makes me hopeful for a future when locally-owned reader-funded news outlets can emerge and flourish across Canada.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: June 9, 2026
Last updated: June 9, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version