Greens seek judicial review - do they have a case?

Let's consider the law.

First, the broadcast spectrum is not private property -- it is public property (internet and cable channels pose other issues). That doesn't mean that broadcasters do not have freedom of expression but it does mean they have to adhere to certain standards. Those standards are set by the CRTC.

Second, the Leaders' debate is a very significant part of the democratic process. It can lead to a change in the election and hence the nation.

Finally, the CRTC presently does not regulate the Leaders' debate -- in fact, pretty well nobody does.

What does all this mean legally?

Well, it's possible to conjure up an argument that the public ownership of airwaves, together with the constitutional mandate in favour of democracy given to government (including the CRTC), requires careful regulation of the Leaders' debate so as to protect and promote democracy. Imagine, say, a situation (hello Italy) where all the broadcast media supported one Party. Democracy would be impaired. Perhaps the CRTC is obliged to have regulations regarding the Leaders' debate.

The trouble for the Greens' argument is that even if a Court accepts there is a duty on the CRTC to regulate (and I see that as a stretch) no Court would go ahead and draft the regulation; the Court would say "CRTC go draft regulations and get back to us in a year or so". At most the Court's order would affect the next election. And even if the order did require regulation, it's not clear the Greens would be given a spot on the debate: perhaps the participants would be limited to Parties with elected members.

None of this, of course, addresses whether Elizabeth May should be allowed on the Leaders' debate -- but while Ms. May may (or may not) be right politically she isn't on the right track legally:

http://www.theprovince.com/mobile/iphone/news/national-news/goes+court+ruling+debates/4541023/story.html