Canadian Legal System Analysis

Legal systems of a country consist of written, or unwritten constitution, primary legislation enacted by a legislative body established by the constitution. And subsidiary bylaws made by a person or bodies given authority by the legislation to do so, customs used by courts by civil, traditional practices, or any other code of law.

Criminal Procedure

Differences between U.S Legal System and Canadian Legal Systems

While both, Canada and the U.S initially used English common law system, their justice systems are very different. The Canadian court system is composed of many courts which differ in levels of legal power separated by jurisdiction. Some courts are provincial while others are federal. Canadian judicial system is a four-level hierarchy

in which each court is bound by the rules of courts above them. The Canadian constitution bestows the federal government with the particular right to legislate the criminal law, whereas the provinces are given exclusive control over civil law.
The U.S judicial system, on the other hand, is entirely different. The U.S constitution narrates that the federal law supersedes state laws in the event of a conflict between state law and the federal law. They are two parallel sets of courts with distinct and usually coinciding jurisdictions. Federal courts have limited domains in that they can only hear the types of cases specified in the Constitution and federal statutes (Surette, 1992).

Another significant difference between Canadian and U.S justice systems is how judges are selected. In the Canadian system, judges are appointed by the government and not elected. The federal government appoints other judges of Supreme Court of Canada, The appellate courts, Federal courts, and the superior courts.
While in most American jurisdictions, the judges are elected. Where, in some cases, elections being partisan, where the nominee is allied and given support by a political party. Also, each state court system has different rules for the purpose of electing judges.
Also, there exist a cultural difference between the U.S and the Canadian systems. The code of conduct is more formal in Canada compared to U.S. The Canadian system does not tolerate the informal communication between the counsel and the judge. Lawyers appearing in a trial before superior-level and federal courts wear black robes or gowns.
Also, in the United States, judges are consigned by case and that Judge presides over all aspects of the case. Contrariwise, in Canada, most claims are assigned to one court, and any judge who sits on that court can hear any other related matter. As a result of this, several different judges will hear and decide procedural motions during a distinctive civil action (Riechel, 2002).

Journalists’ Restrictions on Reporting Court Cases
Federal courts dis-favor the interviewing of jurors just after the verdict. The restrictions are limited to the scope because not all juror circumstances are restricted. Journalists are not barred at all, but they do this to protect the counsel. The attorney does not seek interviews to (or “intending to”) serve the public right to know. The accused right to fair trial and juror’s privacy and protection from harassment interests can limit the journalists’ access and direct interview of the juror or the accused.
If the juror expresses his/her interest of not to be interviewed, then the court will have the power to deny the direct access of the journalist. The juror, in this case, will remain anonymous.
Thus, therefore in Canada, journalists are limited to but not entirely banned from reporting the cases which are on or before the court. The court does not have to conduct an evidentiary hearing to order to place limitations on the media’s ability to interview the jury after the verdict (Mathews, 2008).
The journalists’ who violates the court order on the ban of certain coverage of jury may lead the reporter to judgment.

This will be the judgment against interference of the cases which are before the court. The information leaked to the public by the media could be a vital information that would endanger jury or may not limit the fair judgment.

Media “shield” Law

Democracy is an essential feature which allows free exchange of information. In Canada, there exists a freedom of the press which was adopted from the unwritten British Constitution.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives a constitutional freedom to the media as well as any other media of communication. This is a fundamental freedom to the press. Though the freedom in Canada is considered as the “freedom governed by law,” these freedoms outlined in the charter are always subject to reasonable limits prescribed by the law justified in a free, democratic society (Riechel, 2002).

There are some limits to media that are applicable. Some restrictions are directed to all media, while other limits are just directed to individuals that communicate on their own and others to particular

media.
The Canadian civil laws state that, if a person writes or records and distributes a message that underestimates another person, and then he or she must be prepared to prove to a court, by using admissible evidence, which the message claimed is more probable than not factual. Expressions of opinion may be defended, instead, as a just comment on a matter of public concern.
Defamatory messages and information can be conveyed regardless of their ultimate truth if they are within fair and accurate reports of proceedings to which the public is invited, such as public proceedings of government institutions as well as public meetings.
Unlike the U.S, there is no qualified privilege in Canada to defame a public official provided that the speaker has no actual knowledge of the inaccuracy of the message conveyed. Practical knowledge of falsity is what is termed as "malice" in the United States. In Canada, individuals can remark on the public facts about a public figure who relies on the defense of a fair comment, provided that the facts are known provable, fairly stated, linked to the comment, the comment is honestly made and that comment is a matter of the public interest.
In Canadian civil laws, journalists can rely on the truth as a defense only on issues of public interest. The media can defend their reports on the basis that they met the standard of care that a "reasonable journalist" would have met in their work. Any other general limits on expression are the laws of privacy and criminal law (Martin, 1994).
One can easily be jailed for not identifying the source of information.

Several Canadian reporters have gone to jail for refusing to identify sources of their information. In 1969, a CBC reporter John Smith was sent to jailed for refusing to identify a man whom he had interviewed who claimed to have taught the members of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) to make and set bombs. In 1914, William McCurdy, a news editor of the Halifax, was briefly jailed for refusing to identify the author of a letter written to the editor alleging political corruption. In some instances, reporters had identified sources when a court ordered it, but judges also have, on several instances refused to make such

rules.

References
Martin, R., & Adam, S. (1994). Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law (Vol. 181). McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Mathews, B., & Kenny, M. C. (2008). Mandatory reporting legislation in the United States and Canada: A cross-jurisdictional review of the main features, differences, and issues. Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 50-63.
Reichel, P. L. (2002). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Surette, R. (Ed.). (1990). The media and criminal justice policy: Recent research and social effects. Springfield, IL: CC Thomas.