Photojournalist Amber Bracken takes the stand in press freedom trial

Press freedom trial opens

Photo: The Canadian Press

Acting editor-in-chief and executive director of The Narwhal, Carol Linnitt, left, and photojournalist Amber Bracken centre, arrive at the Law Courts Building in Vancouver, on Monday, January 12, 2026. Bracken and The Narwhal news organization are suing the RCMP, seeking damages and a declaration that Bracken was wrongfully arrested in 2021 at a protest by opponents of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in B.C. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ethan Cairns

A succession of loud bangs and the sounds of a chainsaw and barking dogs filled the courtroom, punctuated by calls of “get your gun off of me,” as photojournalist Amber Bracken took the witness stand in her Supreme Court trial against the RCMP on Tuesday.

Bracken and The Narwhal are suing the RCMP for wrongfully arresting and detaining her while on assignment and violating both her and the publication’s Charter rights in a high-stakes press freedom case set to unfold over the course of five weeks.

To kick off Bracken’s testimony, The Narwhal’s lawyer, Sean Hern, played a video captured by CBC documentarian Michael Toledano showing the moments during and leading up to the arrest of Bracken, Toledano and four protesters on Nov. 19, 2021 in northern British Columbia. In the video, RCMP officers break down the door of the tiny house structure where four protesters were holed up protesting the Coastal Gaslink pipeline, accompanied by two embedded journalists.

“This case is not about what the RCMP was there to do that day, but whether or not journalists have the right to document their actions for the benefit of the general public,” The Narwhal co-founder and acting editor-in-chief Carol Linnitt told media and onlookers as the rain poured outside the Vancouver courthouse on Monday.

“We know the legitimate right of journalists to do their job, to perform their vital role in democracy, is at stake,” Linnitt said.

The often fraught relationship between the media and RCMP will be on display over the next five weeks. The trial’s outcome will have implications for journalists’ rights while covering matters of public interest in places that have been deemed off-limits by police, like sites of protest over industrial projects — a recurring point of tension between land rights, the public’s right to know and the role of police in enforcing injunctions brought by industry.

A ‘total absence’ of ‘timely information’

The trial began Monday morning with opening arguments from both Hern and Craig Cameron, lead counsel for the Attorney General of Canada representing the RCMP. A key point of contention in the case is which witnesses should be allowed.

Hern went first, arguing that if journalists like Bracken were not present at protest sites, and if those arrests were hidden from view behind an RCMP checkpoint, “there would have been a total absence of reliable, impartial and timely information available to the public.” While first-hand accounts from protesters would eventually trickle out as people were released, in the short-term, only the perspective of the police themselves would have been communicated, he told the court.

Hern invoked the 2016 case of journalist Justin Brake — a landmark press freedom case that found journalists have a role even in areas protected by injunctions — to argue that as a journalist, Bracken should not be lumped in with the protestors occupying the cabin. Bracken, he said, is more akin to a “visitor,” there to observe and document the events.

The RCMP’s legal counsel, Craig Cameron, argued this is a misapplication of the Brake case.

“Her work as a journalist does not immunise her from or minimise consequences of failure to comply with a court order,” Cameron said.

He submits that the RCMP didn’t know Bracken was in the tiny house until after her arrest, but that even if they did, it wouldn’t matter because “she still can't violate the injunction, and she can't ignore lawful police direction to leave the tiny house.”

Freedom of the press does not give the media the right to ignore a court order or ignore the law, Cameron said.

“Nobody was allowed to breach the terms of the injunction order,” he stated multiple times throughout his opening statement on Monday afternoon.

“They want to establish that the media … as a class should have preferential treatment in detention under Section 9 of the Charter.”

Whatever protections the Charter may afford the media, they do not and cannot extend to allowing members of the media to breach court orders, disregard lawful directions of the RCMP or interfere with the RCMP’s efforts to enforce the law, Cameron said.

There is no accreditation system for media in Canada so “anyone with a cell phone and a blog is part of the extended definition of 'media,'” Cameron said, meaning that if preferential treatment were afforded to media, it could be extended to everyone, Cameron said. He acknowledged Bracken, who has won international awards and worked for some of the biggest publications in the world, does not fit into the “blogger” category.

Chilling effect

On the first day of the trial, Hern also emphasized the chilling effect the RCMP’s conduct can have on newsgathering. Aside from the obvious deterrent when the RCMP arrests journalists, lack of access also contributes to a lack of coverage, Hern said. When newsrooms, particularly small ones, cannot be sure they will actually be able to access protest sites they have to decide whether to dedicate precious resources to send reporters to often remote areas.

This is why freelance journalists often arrive at the scene early so they don’t get barred from reporting, Hern said.

“This is just what happens because of the RCMP's approaches,” Hern said. “They create a circumstance where reporters really do need to get into the area first so that they won't have to risk that uncertainty.”

But Cameron argued the court should not allow a handful of journalists to testify about their experiences with the RCMP while covering protest activities because it is outside the scope of this specific case on Bracken’s arrest and detention. One such witness who The Narwhal wants to call is journalist and filmmaker Melissa Cox. Cox was arrested and detained on Nov. 18, 2021 while filming a documentary about the Coastal GasLink protests.

“This is not a general inquiry into the RCMP’s treatment of journalists,” Cameron said, emphasizing that the notice of civil claim does not contain any plea of systemic wrongs or advance any individual legal claims about the RCMP’s treatment of other media members (which include Cox, Toledano, Lee Wilson at the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, documentary filmmaker Dan Loan and Amanda Follet Hollsgood at The Tyee.)

Many other journalists covering the same protests were arrested or detained, or at a minimum kept from doing their jobs by the RCMP, which is relevant to Bracken’s situation, Hern said.

On day one, the small courtroom was almost full of supporters and reporters, in particular a cadre of 10 staff from The Narwhal. John Vaillant, celebrated author of Fire Weather and The Golden Spruce, was there on Monday watching the court proceedings in support of Bracken and The Narwhal.

The public needs journalists to go to these remote areas to be their eyes and ears in these types of difficult and isolated situations, Vaillant told Canada’s National Observer outside the courtroom.

“These are national operations, national projects — especially energy projects — we all have a right to know about it, particularly now, especially when the needs of the state and the needs of an oil company intersect with the needs and rights of Indigenous people,” Vaillant said.

Bracken will likely be cross-examined on Wednesday.