Rebel News Fined for Violating Election Law, Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Decision

Right-wing media outlet Rebel News has lost its latest legal challenge against a series of fines originally imposed by the commissioner of elections in 2021. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Rebel News’ arguments that it had not violated Canadian election advertising rules when it promoted a book critical of then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during the 2019 federal election campaign. The court’s recent ruling, released on January 6, 2025, confirms two previous decisions from the commissioner of elections and the Federal Court—leaving Rebel News on the hook for $3,000 in fines and an extended legal bill. While Rebel News and founder Ezra Levant insist the penalties pose a threat to free expression, the courts maintain that the outlet failed to abide by straightforward third-party advertising registration and disclosure requirements.

Details

1. Background to the Book Controversy
   • In the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, Rebel News posted lawn signs promoting The Libranos: What the Media Won’t Tell You About Justin Trudeau’s Corruption, a book by Rebel founder Ezra Levant.
   • The signs featured the book’s cover—portraying Trudeau and other Liberal ministers in a style reminiscent of the HBO series The Sopranos—along with an exhortation to “buy the book.”
   • Elections Canada officials concluded these signs went beyond simple promotion of a product and functioned as partisan material intended to oppose a specific political party and its leader, thereby triggering third-party advertising regulations under the Canada Elections Act.
2. Why the Fines Were Imposed
   • According to the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, third parties spending $500 or more on election advertising must register with Elections Canada and disclose who funded and authorized the material.
   • The commissioner determined that Rebel News had spent at least $500 on printing or distributing the signs but never registered as a third party. Moreover, the signs themselves lacked a legally required “tag line” identifying who paid for them.
3. Rebel News’ Legal Position
   • Rebel News argued that its signs merely promoted the sale of a commercially available book—a recognized exception to election advertising if the book was “planned to be made available… regardless of whether there was to be an election.”
   • The commissioner, and subsequently the courts, found that Rebel News timed the book release specifically to coincide with the 2019 campaign, undercutting the so-called “book exemption.”
   • After losing in Federal Court (2023 FC 1650), Rebel News appealed further, contending it was unfairly singled out for criticizing the prime minister and that the law’s registration requirements did not apply to these signs.
4. Federal Court of Appeal Ruling
   • In its January 6, 2025 decision (2025 FCA 3), the Federal Court of Appeal held that the commissioner’s findings were reasonable: the lawn signs were indeed “election advertising,” as they opposed a registered party during a campaign.
   • The appeal court noted that the promotion’s timing appeared closely linked to the election, meaning it was not simply a commercial endeavour unrelated to the campaign.
   • Rejecting the attempt to invoke paragraph (b) of the election advertising definition (the “book exemption”), the judges concluded the exemption does not apply where an entity strategically markets a book in a manner primarily aimed at influencing voter perceptions in an ongoing election.
5. Rebel News’ Response
   • Ezra Levant, Rebel News’ founder, posted a reaction piece on the outlet’s website, alleging the federal government spent significant resources prosecuting what he views as legitimate political commentary.
   • Levant pledged to pay the $3,000 in fines—plus approximately $10,000 in court costs—while continuing to raise funds to defray legal fees that total more than $150,000. He insists the case highlights a threat to press freedom in Canada.

Implications

1. Enforcement of Third-Party Advertising Rules
   • This case reaffirms that Elections Canada and the commissioner have broad authority to investigate and penalize violations of campaign financing and advertising laws.
   • It sends a message that organizations and individuals must register if they spend above certain thresholds—regardless of whether their content also has commercial elements, like selling a book.
2. Freedom of Expression vs. Election Integrity
   • While Rebel News characterizes the ruling as a chilling precedent for free speech, the courts have so far maintained that these restrictions are constitutionally permissible to uphold transparency in election campaigns.
   • The case underscores a key tension: balancing open criticism of political figures with rules preventing undisclosed or improperly labeled partisan messaging.
3. Potential Impact on Other Publications
   • The Federal Court of Appeal decision may prompt authors and alternative media outlets to scrutinize the timing and marketing of political books, ensuring they do not inadvertently breach campaign rules if their messaging opposes or endorses particular candidates or parties.

What’s Next?

1. No Further Automatic Appeal
   • Rebel News could theoretically seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but there is no guarantee the top court would hear the case. Levant has publicly acknowledged the difficulty of convincing the Supreme Court to intervene.
2. Ongoing Legal Battles
   • Rebel News has indicated it remains committed to challenging Elections Canada and other government policies in future. Its outlets may pursue additional lawsuits or constitutional challenges, particularly if the outlet releases more politically charged publications during elections.
3. Broader Legislative Oversight
   • As Canada continues to refine election laws—particularly around third-party activity—this outcome might spur calls for clarity on distinguishing genuine commercial products from de facto partisan advertising.
   • Political parties, advocacy groups, and authors are likely to stay alert for signs that regulators may crack down on campaign-related materials presented as straightforward merchandise.

In the end, the Federal Court of Appeal has reinforced the principle that timing and context matter when promoting political content. While Rebel News insists the rulings undermine press freedom, officials say the fine and associated registration rules simply protect voters’ right to know who is spending money to shape electoral debates. Whether this marks the end of the legal saga for Rebel News or the start of another appeal is yet to be determined.