absent scientific or empirical evidence, the court can apply reason and logic.

A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., [2012] 2 SCR 567, 2012 SCC 46

[15] The amicus curiae pointed to the absence of 

evidence of harm from the girl about her own emotional vulnerability. But, while evidence of a direct, 

harmful consequence to an individual applicant is 

relevant, courts may also conclude that there is objectively discernable harm.

[16] This Court found objective harm, for example, in upholding the constitutionality of Quebec’s 

Rules of Practice that limited the media’s ability to film, take photographs, and conduct interviews in relation to legal proceedings (in Canadian 

Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 19), and in prohibiting the media 

from broadcasting a video exhibit (in Canadian 

Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 

65). In the former, Deschamps J. held (at para. 

56) that the Dagenais/Mentuck test requires neither more nor less than the one from R. v. Oakes, 

[1986] 1 S.C.R. 103. In other words, absent scientific or empirical evidence of the necessity of restricting access, the court can find harm by applying reason and logic: RJR-MacDonald Inc. 

v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 

199, at para. 72; Thomson Newspapers Co. v. 

Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877, 

at para. 91