CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL  
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PANEL  
CKEA-FM re The Lockeroom  
CBSC Decision 20.2122-1304  
2022 CBSC 3  
May 25, 2022  
S. Courtemanche (Chair), S. Commer, V. Dubois, P. Gratton, K. Hesketh,  
R. Hildebrand, C. Scott  
THE FACTS  
The Lockeroom is CKEA-FM’s (95.7 Cruz FM, Edmonton) morning show hosted by  
Lochlin Cross, Grant Johnson and James White. It airs weekdays from 5:30 am to  
10:00 am. In between songs, the hosts discuss current affairs, pop culture and social  
issues, and often share personal anecdotes. On February 10, 2022, around 6:15 am, the  
“Topic of the Day” segment was about differences of opinions on COVID-19 vaccination.  
Lochlin Cross invited listeners to phone or text the show to share their views. He then  
offered his personal position on the issue, acknowledging that he is aware of his own  
hypocrisy in saying that things need to get back to normal after the COVID-19 pandemic,  
but also being reluctant to interact with people who are not vaccinated. The relevant parts  
of the conversation between Cross and his co-hosts went as follows (a more complete  
transcript can be found in Appendix A):  
Cross: I’m trying to appreciate others’ opinions on this. I am, honestly. But I will be very  
honest, I’m judgmental of those that didn’t have the same viewpoint that I have.  
Johnson:  
Yeah?  
Cross: And another hypocrisy sort of element to this is I have commented multiple times  
that we need to work on that judgment sort of piece in, in life.  
[...]  
Cross: I, I’ll be honest. And I’ll paint a picture for you. And this is a stupid scenario, but  
it’s something that happened to me this week. Our friends group is planning to gather for  
Super Bowl on Sunday.  
2
Johnson:  
Yeah?  
Cross: At Kelly’s.  
[...]  
Cross: It’s a watering hole.  
Johnson:  
[...]  
Downtown.  
Cross: There’s a friend in our friends group and, god love him, he’s one of those guys you  
kind of want in your friends group. He has every tool known to man.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: He can fix absolutely anything. He’s not great at it, but he can [Johnson laughs],  
he can fix just about anything. And he, he’s a good friend to have. He’s also that guy, and,  
and, again, I’m joking, but he’s also that guy that, if you need a body buried, you call [P.]1.  
Johnson:  
He’s got a place.  
Cross: He’s, he lives out on the, out on an acreage and he is that guy that would call, I  
could call him at three o’clock in the morning and go, “I killed Jimmy. I killed Jimmy. I need  
you to help me.”  
Johnson:  
We mentioned burning a car one time and he was, like, “No, you gotta do  
it, like you put it in, you start the fire in a chip bag –“  
Cross: I will never –  
Johnson:  
“And then it smoulders and ...”  
Cross: I will never need to get rid of a body. [others laugh] Okay? Let’s say that out loud.  
I’m just trying to point out the kind of friend that he is.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: All right? I have avoided Weird [J.], which is his nickname in our friends group,  
[Johnson chuckles] because he’s not vaccinated. And I know he has convinced himself –  
and that’s his business – that he didn’t need to do that.  
Johnson:  
Cross: Right? Okay? I don’t agree with him. And I have avoided him.  
Johnson: Mm hm.  
Yeah.  
Cross: I have avoided his phone calls. I avoid his texts. And he’s planning on going to  
Kelly’s on Sunday. And I will be honest with you, my first instinct was “I don’t want to go  
now”. [Johnson laughs] And I’ll tell you why. Not because I don’t respect what he, ugh ...  
It was his choice not to get vaccinated. And I’m trying to respect that decision regardless  
1 The CBSC has redacted the first and last name of the complainant so as not to exacerbate the breach of  
privacy that has occurred.  
3
of whatever it is that he, that, that, whatever the decision he made. I don’t want to sit down  
and have a conversation about “I told you so”.  
Johnson:  
[...]  
Yeah.  
Cross: My thought process revolving around this is I don’t want to have those  
conversations, like “I told you it was all ...!”  
Johnson:  
Right.  
Cross: “See? See?!”  
Johnson:  
Yeah. Just trying to watch football and drink beer.  
Cross: Is that, is that, and I’m, literally, I was, like, “I’m staying home now.” And then I  
was, like, “Why am I doing that?”  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: What is wrong with me?  
Johnson:  
ʼCause I feel that way. Like, not that I’m not going, don’t want to go or  
anything, but I don’t want to have those conversations with people. It’s, like, ...  
Cross: It shouldn’t keep me at home.  
Johnson:  
No, it shouldn’t.  
The CBSC received a complaint on February 15 about this broadcast. The complainant,  
who is the friend identified by the hosts, strongly objected to having his vaccination status  
revealed as this is medical information which is private and confidential and they did not  
have his permission to disclose his name or use him as a topic of discussion. The  
complainant also objected to linking him to criminal activity such as hiding a dead body  
and burning a car. The complainant considered that these comments were derogatory  
and caused him deep embarrassment. In his letter filed with the CBSC, he stated as  
follows:  
The problem that I have here with this podcast is that I happen to be that ‘friend’ that he  
mentioned. [...] I am completely appalled and disgusted that Lochlin had the audacity to  
mention my vaccination status during his live broadcast. Medical information is private  
/confidential information – I did not give him permission to say my name or use me for his  
topic of discussion.  
[...] Not only does Lochlin have the audacity to mention my private medical information on  
air, but he also refers to me as the friend that you could go to if you needed a body hidden.  
Grant then joins in and talks about how I mentioned how you could burn a car and start a  
fire with a chip bag – both of these statements are a direct defamation to my character.  
This is not the first time they have referred to me as someone they could go to if they  
needed a body hidden – it has been mentioned on several shows. In the past, I have  
expressed my concerns to Lochlin about not mentioning these kinds of derogatory things  
about me on the air and he said he wouldn't but here we are, yet again.  
4
Mentioning my vaccination status is the straw that broke the camel's back – he crossed the  
line with this one. After that show, I had friends, family and work acquaintances call me to  
tell me they had heard the show on the way to work – this has caused me huge  
embarrassment.  
The station’s Program Director responded to the complainant on February 17, as follows:  
We review each complaint very seriously and I’m sorry to hear what happened. As you  
know, Lochlin is very personal and real on the air to a fault, where sometimes he forgets  
he has an audience. I’m in no way making an excuse for any of the hosts or coming to  
their defense, as this was not appropriate and I can assure you that steps have been taken  
to ensure this doesn’t happen again.  
The complainant filed his Ruling Request on February 21 stating that the response  
appeared to be condoning Cross’s inappropriate behaviour. The complainant questioned  
whether the behaviour complied with the broadcast code of ethics and reiterated his  
concerns that:  
Exposing one’s personal medical information on a live broadcast is unacceptable – no  
permission was given for this and medical information is private and confidential – end of  
story.  
Making comments directed towards me regarding hiding dead bodies/starting car fires  
infers that I take part in criminal activities or am a criminal – these comments are totally  
false. I consider these egregious statements to be slanderous and a defamation to my  
character – I hold a professional designation and have been in the same industry for 30  
years – these disparaging comments have caused me huge embarrassment as I had  
friends, family and colleagues reach out to me after that show.  
(The full correspondence can be found in Appendix B.)  
THE DECISION  
The English-Language Panel examined the complaint under Clause 6 of the Canadian  
Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and also considered the essence or  
purpose of Article 5.0 of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s Code  
of Journalistic Ethics:  
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation  
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and  
editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle  
shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs,  
magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion,  
comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or  
callers.  
5
RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, Article 5.0 – Respect  
Our conduct will be respectful, always taking into account editorial relevance and the public  
interest.  
[...]  
5.5  
We will not infringe on a person’s privacy unless we believe there is overriding  
public interest.  
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and listened to a recording of the  
challenged broadcast. The Panel unanimously concludes that CKEA-FM breached  
Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 5.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic  
Ethics as it relates to a person’s privacy and a majority of the Panel considers that certain  
comments about the complainant were contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.  
The questions presented to the Panel were:  
1) Did CKEA-FM violate Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 5.5 of  
the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics by providing this individual’s COVID-  
19 vaccination status?  
Previous CBSC decisions have explained that, in making a determination regarding a  
potential privacy breach, an individual must be identified on air. This means that the  
broadcast must provide sufficient information for the general public to identify the person,  
not just that the person might be recognizable to family, friends and acquaintances.  
Moreover, in this particular fact circumstance, the complainant had not contacted the  
station in any way prior to the broadcast and had not given his consent to broadcast his  
vaccination status. It just so happened that this individual was a friend of the host Lochlin  
Cross. The on-air host wanted to engage the audience in a discussion regarding his own  
misgivings about joining his unvaccinated friend at a local pub in order to watch the Super  
Bowl. The on-air host identified the friend by using both the man’s last name and, later  
in the same segment, the man’s nickname which includes his full first name.  
In CTV re Canada AM (Airborne Hazing) (CBSC Decision 94/95-0159, March 12, 1996),  
the complainant raised a concern about the news coverage of the Canadian Airborne  
Regiment’s hazing practices. The viewer was troubled by what they considered was the  
invasion of privacy of the persons shown on the home video taken by a member (or  
members) of the Airborne Regiment and broadcast by CTV as no effort was made to  
conceal the identities of the “victims of this debasement”. The CBSC did not consider  
that the coverage of the incident had violated anyone’s right to privacy for the following  
reasons:  
The point is that the issue is not so much the recording and broadcasting of the image of  
the individual as it is the identification of the person. Where the broadcaster provides no  
information which permits the public at large to identify the individual, such as in this case,  
6
the broadcaster has not interfered with that person’s right to privacy. The fact that the  
individual filmed and those close to him may know who he is does not interfere with his  
right to be free from identification by the public at large.  
Circumstances do, moreover, arise from time to time in which the public interest in an event  
may override the otherwise legitimate interest of individuals to keep their identity and  
activities free from filmed scrutiny.  
A feature that permitted people walking on the street to enter the “Speakers Corner” booth  
located outside the CITY-TV building in Toronto and videotape themselves speaking  
about any topic they wished of which certain selected clips were broadcast was the  
subject of a complaint in CITY-TV re Speakers Corner (CBSC Decision 97/98-0572,  
July 28, 1998). The objection was to a speaker who talked about the Ontario  
government’s labour and welfare policies, and criticized the government for allowing  
taxpayers’ money to go to “people who just sit around and collect disability”. The  
complainant believed that “the segment referred to me and described my disability  
intending in my opinion to harm, shock and discriminate. The person making the  
allegations was a member of my family who was and is unaware of my circumstances.”  
The Panel did not find a code violation as the complainant had not been identified by the  
speaker and the broadcaster had purged all identifying elements prior to airing.  
The on-air hosts of a radio open-line program were the subject of a complaint in CJMS-  
AM re comments on two episodes of Le p’tit monde à Frenchie (CBSC Decision 04/05-  
0939, October 24, 2005). In the first episode, the individual had telephoned the program,  
using a pseudonym, and had voiced critical comments about the hosts. Once the call  
was disconnected, the hosts responded by making equally critical comments about the  
caller and tried to phone him back and announced his telephone number on air  
repeatedly. In the second episode, which was broadcast four days later, a woman  
telephoned the program and revealed the real name of the complainant. The Panel found  
that the complainant’s privacy had been breached although the critical comments of the  
complainant were not a violation of the code:  
There was no justification whatsoever for co-hosts Jarraud and Daigneault to permit the  
telephone number of the complainant to be revealed on the airwaves. While they would  
have been responsible had the revelation come from the lips of a third party, their decision  
to broadcast the information was entirely their own. The publicly-licensed airwaves are not  
available for privately-vindictive comments. That usage in the matter at hand is in breach  
of both Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and the spirit of [the Privacy article] of the  
RTDNA Code of Ethics.  
The Panel considers it useful to also comment on the broadcast of January 10, during  
which the name of the complainant was announced by caller Jeannine. It does not consider  
that the broadcast of a name, without other identifying information, is necessarily  
problematic and in breach of any of the private broadcasters’ codified standards. After all,  
it is frequently the case that individual callers to an open-line program or to a recording  
device on which they are invited to leave opinions or comments on an issue for later  
broadcast leave precisely that information. […] The issue becomes a problem when the  
7
purpose is not benign, as was the case in the broadcast of January 10. The name was not  
broadcast in connection with the complainant’s call. It was aired four days later by what  
can only be characterized as a gratuitous or malevolent gesture (and could have been  
connected with the telephone number given on the January 6 broadcast by anyone inclined  
to make that connection). There was absolutely no purpose for the on-air identification of  
the complainant. Whether “Jeannine” revealed the purpose of her call to the program  
producer or screener or deceived them in that regard, the hosts ought not to have permitted  
that information to go to air. Whether they were sloppy or did not have the technical means  
to apply is not the problem of the complainant. It is the problem of the station. The failure  
to prevent the broadcast of the complainant’s name in the circumstances herein described  
constitutes a part of the breach of both Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and the spirit  
of [the Privacy article] of the RTDNA Code of Ethics described in the previous paragraph.  
A listener to an Asian-language station wrote directly to complain that the Lac Viet Radio  
program did not play the Vietnamese national anthem at the beginning of its broadcasts  
or display the Vietnamese flag at its events in CHKG-FM re Lac Viet Radio (CBSC  
Decision 05/06-0023, May 9, 2006). Due to the historical tensions between North and  
South Vietnam, the listener felt that the program’s failure to perform these actions was  
inappropriate. The broadcaster took the position that it wanted to remain neutral in these  
controversial political issues. The listener then published at least two open letters in  
Canadian-Vietnamese publications which criticized the station and was alleged to have  
made vocal criticisms of the station at a community meeting. In response, the program  
made announcements on air which provided his name and declared that he had criticized  
them publicly so they would no longer be accepting telephone calls from him on their  
open-line program. The listener complained to the CBSC as he considered these  
announcements made unfair and inaccurate accusations against him. The Panel did not  
find a violation of the CAB Code of Ethics:  
In the matter at hand, the Panel finds that the broadcaster operated with great care and  
sensitivity. It was not brash in its statements. It was not condemnatory. It explained with  
considerable care its rationale for no longer permitting Mr. Tien to have access to its  
airwaves. In so doing, it explained its own policy of wishing to stay above the political fray  
on Vietnam-sensitive issues such as the broadcast of the Vietnamese national anthem and  
the display of the flag. Arguably, the statements were not even about the complainant but  
rather about the issues he raised. […]  
Most material of all, though, from the Panel’s perspective, is that it was Mr. Tien himself  
who rendered the entire matter public by publishing two open letters in Vietnamese-  
Canadian periodicals. He focused on the matters of concern to him and criticized Lac Viet  
Radio to essentially the same audience that would be potential listeners of the weekly radio  
program. Moreover, it was he who first chose to make these issues public. While the  
Panel concedes that the specific sensitivities of the Vietnamese cultural issues are beyond  
their knowledge, it is not those disputes that are at issue. It is the question of access. Mr.  
Tien had his. It is only fair for Lac Viet Radio to be able to respond. Not only did they do  
so but they did so temperately and even generously by inviting Mr. Tien back on their  
airwaves after they had decided not to do so. The Panel finds their fairness exemplary and  
considers that they have not breached the foregoing Code provision by their broadcasts.  
8
A radio interview involving the co-host of a public affairs program on the French television  
station TQS who had just been fired was the subject of a complaint in CHMP-FM re a  
segment broadcast on Puisqu’il faut se lever (CBSC Decision 06/07-0607, April 7, 2008).  
During the interview, the fired co-host claimed he had been fired due to a number of  
complaints made against him from “ethnic groups”, the Quebec Bar Association and two  
individual politicians whom he named. One of the politicians complained that the radio  
station should not have allowed the television co-host to identify him on air as he had not  
intended his complaint against TQS to be a public matter. Although broadcasters are not  
usually allowed to name or to provide other identifying information about complainants on  
air, the Panel did not find a breach for the following reasons:  
In the matter at hand, much turns on the special circumstances associated with the  
complaint filed. To begin, the Panel finds that the complainant’s characterization of  
Stéphane Gendron’s comment as “petty” is unfounded. The Adjudicators have reviewed  
the transcript and listened attentively to the tone of the fired host’s comments. The Panel  
considers that M. Gendron was not in any way aggressive in his tone regarding the list of  
the six complaints made. […] If anything, Gendron appeared rather stunned by the entire  
turn of events and his own dismissal. The Panel detected neither hostility nor  
vindictiveness, a material issue in the cases decided by it in the past […].  
The Panel also puts considerable weight on the fact that the complainant in the matter  
under consideration was a public figure acting as such. Not only was the complaint filed in  
the CHMP case sent to the CBSC on Assemblée nationale letterhead, but the original  
complaint of October 30, 2006 regarding an episode of L’avocat et le diable on TQS was  
also sent on Assemblée national letterhead. Equally relevant, in the case of the 2006  
matter is the fact that the complaint was initially sent to the CRTC (which forwarded it to  
the CBSC for disposition, in the normal course). In such a case, the practice of the CRTC  
is to file the actual complaint received on the broadcaster’s public file, and any member of  
the public would be presumed to know that or, at least, not to have a right to object to such  
“public” treatment. This is not, of course, to suggest that a legislator, whether provincial or  
federal, has no right to file a complaint, but rather that an individual doing so on the  
stationery of the state may reasonably be assumed to be engaged in the business of the  
state and thus subject to more public scrutiny.  
A listener to a radio station submitted feedback via a private Facebook message in which  
she was critical of changes the station had made to its music and also of a particular host  
in CFBK-FM re a “Shots & Afterthoughts” segment (CBSC Decision 14/15-0554,  
August 28, 2015). The radio host responded to the criticisms on air during his editorial  
segment entitled “Shots and Afterthoughts”. He stated her full name and then addressed  
her criticisms of his interview style and presenting abilities. The complainant believed  
that the host had violated her privacy by announcing her full name and had “defamed”  
and “bullied” her on air. The Panel found that the broadcast did not insult the listener in  
any way nor did the broadcast of her full name violate the code, due to the unique  
circumstances of this situation:  
Although the on-air person, Mr. Nickalls, responded to criticisms levelled against him and  
his tone was somewhat defensive, the Panel does not consider that Mr. Nickalls, “aired an  
extremely defamatory rant about [the complainant]” as mentioned by her […] nor did he  
9
bully her on air as she alleged. […] On the contrary, Nickalls was polite and even thanked  
the complainant for her comments concerning the station’s programming and for listening  
to the station.  
[…]  
In addition to what was said about her, the complainant was also troubled by the fact that  
Nickalls broadcast her full name. Concerning this privacy issue, the Panel is of the view  
that sending a message to the station on its Facebook account so that it will be read by all  
its employees is certainly not an appropriate way to ensure the sender’s privacy. The  
complainant claims that she sent her comments in a “private message via the station’s  
Facebook group” and did not post them publicly; therefore, the station should have  
refrained from mentioning her name on air.  
Although the message was not on the recipient’s wall for the entire Facebook community  
to read, it was sent at large to all the station’s employees and it did not contain any request  
for confidentiality. To be confidential, messages should be sent via e-mail or letter  
addressed to one individual and/or marked “private and confidential”. While it is  
understandable that the complainant may not have thought to put such an indication on  
her message, there should be some expectation on the part of the sender that general  
communications with a station could be mentioned on air. This includes emails sent to  
general accounts (rather than to the account of specific individuals), filling out “contact us”  
online forms, telephone calls to the studio line, and messages sent via social media such  
as Facebook and Twitter. […]  
This being said, the Panel notes that citing the name of the complainant in his remarks did  
not add any value to Mr. Nickalls’ comments, although they were certainly not a defamatory  
rant. The Panel is of the view that broadcasters should be cautious about naming persons  
on air even when no harsh comments are made. The Panel also notes that had additional  
identifying information about the complainant been broadcast (for example, civic address,  
place of employment, etc.), it might have decided differently.  
In a recurring segment on a radio program called “réveil anniversaire”, where the host  
conspired with friends and family members to play a joke on a person celebrating his or  
her birthday, the host called a woman who was celebrating her eighteenth birthday in  
CIKI-FM re a joke on Tout le monde debout (CBSC Decision 02/03-0358, July 17, 2003).  
The host provided the woman’s full name and age, and the name of her university  
residence. During the call, the host pretended that he wanted to go out with her, because,  
he alleged, he had heard so much regarding her sexual prowess. The complainant  
expressed concern that the privacy of the woman might have been infringed by airing her  
detailed personal information, especially in combination with the sexual content  
mentioned on air. The Panel was of the view that had the “victim”’s consent not been  
obtained, revelation of such detailed information would have been a breach of the code;  
however, the Panel had no way of assessing whether or not such consent had been given  
and therefore found no breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics for invasion of  
privacy. It also noted that “the joke could have worked with only a first name or even a  
changed name given; in short, there was not even a compelling or a justifiable reason for  
providing such precise information, which would be susceptible of misuse by a listener”.  
10  
In the case at hand, the Panel unanimously considers that there are several factors that  
lead it to the conclusion that Lochlin Cross’s identification of the complainant along with  
the revelation of his vaccination status was a clear and egregious breach of privacy and  
contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 5.5 of the RTDNA Code of  
Journalistic Ethics. These factors include:  
Both the first and last names were provided, albeit separately within the same  
segment and, even though the first name given was the complainant’s nickname  
of “Weird [J.]”, the full last name was given and together this information would  
clearly permit the public at large to identify the individual involved;  
Having clearly identified this individual to the public at large, Cross went on to  
discuss the fact that the complainant was not vaccinated. The COVID-19  
pandemic has generally been a polarizing issue. Most certainly, the choice of  
whether or not to be vaccinated has been hotly debated on all media, as has the  
subject of public and personal recriminations. However, whether one is vaccinated  
or not constitutes medical information that is fundamentally private. The revelation  
of this private confidential medical information was not only careless but egregious;  
The complainant never contacted the station to get on air or to participate in any  
discussion regarding COVID-19 or anything related to his vaccination status.  
There was no consent of any kind to have his private confidential medical  
information made widely available to the public at large. It is certainly  
understandable that the revelation of this information caused him “huge  
embarrassment”, as asserted by the complainant; and  
In the circumstances, there was absolutely no compelling or justifiable need to  
identify the individual. It did not advance the humour or the point of view Cross  
wished to convey. The discussion could just have easily proceeded without  
identifying the complainant. Even though the Panel does not consider that Cross  
wished to be malicious, it demonstrated a serious lack of judgment. Moreover, the  
complainant stated and it was not disputed by the station that, “In the past, I have  
expressed my concerns to Lochlin about not mentioning these kinds of derogatory  
things about me on the air and he said he wouldn’t but here we are, yet again.”  
This means that Cross knew that this individual did not wish to be identified or in  
any way included in the on-air host’s banter.  
The Panel also considered whether using only the individual’s nickname would have  
breached the applicable privacy code provisions. As explained in the precedents cited  
earlier, the degree of identifiability to the public at large is key in making a determination  
of whether there has been a breach of privacy. Although in the circumstances there is no  
need to make a determination on this issue, the Panel considers that using only the  
individual’s nickname would likely not have constituted a breach of privacy. Having said  
that, the Panel strongly believes that the identification of this individual for the purposes  
11  
of the discussion was completely unnecessary and did not advance the point of view the  
on-air host wished to make nor did it serve the public interest.  
2) Did CKEA-FM violate Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics for any other  
comments about the complainant?  
As noted earlier, Cross made a number of comments regarding the dubious character of  
the complainant. In trying to be lighthearted and funny, the on-air host said that he was  
a friend and intimated jokingly that this individual is either shady or a semi-criminal as he  
is the one you call when you need something fixed including when you need to have a  
body buried or a car torched. These comments had the potential to cause the  
complainant great embarrassment, as the complainant stated that he holds “a  
professional designation and has been in the same industry for 30 years“.  
In CIQC-AM re Galganov in the Morning (Invasion of Privacy) (CBSC Decision 97/98-  
0509, August 14, 1998), the host of a call-in show had given a complainant’s full name  
on air and had insulted her for making a comment to the CBSC about a previous episode  
of the show. He also allowed some callers to insult her with such terms as “some kind of  
character flaw” and “an inferior person”. The Panel found a breach, stating:  
In this case […] the Council must deal, not with general comments directed at an ideological  
group, but with strong criticism directed at a specific, identified individual who does not  
benefit from the same access to the airwaves. The Council is of the opinion that the  
considerable power generated by the broadcast medium dictates that the person entrusted  
to wield this power will not abuse it by using it against relatively “defenceless” individuals.  
[…]  
The Council recognizes fully that critical comments can be made about individuals,  
particularly those in pubic life but also, in appropriate circumstances which it need not  
plumb here, with respect to private individuals. The question for the Council will always be  
the weighing of the statement and the circumstances. At its most basic level, the fairness  
requirement set out in […] Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics dictates that a balance must  
be struck between the type and extent of the criticism of an individual and the  
appropriateness or merit of any such criticism when measured against the individual’s  
criticized actions or behaviour. Propriety, a second requirement found in the same  
paragraph, dictates that the public airwaves will not be used for irrelevant or gratuitous  
personal attacks on individuals. The Council considers that Howard Galganov’s show  
broadcast on December 9 failed on both these counts.  
A majority of the Panel finds that the comments regarding the complainant’s character  
constituted a breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. It understands that morning  
shows on music stations are meant to be lighthearted, injecting humour to the various  
topics discussed. However, the context in which these comments were made where the  
complainant was clearly identified and his COVID-19 vaccination status revealed and  
then the on-air host went on to make offensive comments about the man’s character  
constitutes a breach of the code. The fact that Cross said he was joking did not make  
these comments acceptable in the circumstances. The complainant never consented nor  
12  
did he reach out to the station to take part in the morning host’s banter and had in the  
past apparently informed the host that he did not wish to be targeted by him.  
More importantly, the entire segment did not need to identify the complainant in order to  
make the point of the discussion. Cross simply should never have included a clear  
identification of the complainant in the circumstances. The majority of the Panel  
considers that a person would be deeply offended even if such comments were done in  
a joking manner since to be identified as someone you call when you need a body buried  
or when you need a car torched could and did in this circumstance cause deep  
embarrassment and was completely unnecessary.  
Dissenting opinion of P. Gratton and C. Scott  
We do not consider that the comments made by Cross regarding the complainant’s  
character constituted a breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. In our view, if  
these comments had been made without clearly identifying the complainant or, even if  
they had been made using only his nickname, such banter would not have constituted a  
violation of the code. The comments about illegal activity were obviously meant as satire  
and we consider that the codes allow for such content.  
We believe the issue of the unflattering comments and the complainant’s COVID-19  
vaccination status should be treated separately. Accordingly, when considered outside  
of the disclosure of the vaccination status, these comments do not reach the level of a  
breach. It should also be noted that the comments were not all negative or derogatory.  
Cross did say that the complainant was a good friend to have and had every tool known  
to man and can fix absolutely everything. We consider these comments were an attempt  
at humour and were not made in a vindictive manner. Although these comments may not  
be considered in good taste, they were acceptable within the context of a live radio show.  
However, we reiterate that there was no necessity to clearly identify the complainant in  
the circumstances.  
Broadcaster Responsiveness  
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant.  
The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a  
courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, although CKEA-FM provided  
an acceptable answer, it was quite perfunctory. The Panel considers that in this particular  
circumstance, with such an egregious breach of privacy, the complainant would have  
appreciated and benefitted from a more thoughtful response which would have  
recognized the seriousness of the matter and which would ring less hollow.  
Notwithstanding this, the broadcaster has fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and,  
subject to the announcement of this decision, nothing further is required on this occasion.  
13  
DECISION ANNOUNCEMENT  
CKEA-FM is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms, once during  
peak listening hours within three days following the release of this decision and once  
more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in  
which The Lockeroom was broadcast, but not on the same day as the first mandated  
announcement; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the  
announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the  
complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with  
a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two  
announcements which must be made by CKEA-FM.  
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CKEA-FM  
breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics and  
the Privacy clause of the Radio Television Digital News Association’s Code  
of Journalistic Ethics in a broadcast of The Lockeroom on February 10,  
2022. Cruz FM identified a person by their full name and revealed their  
COVID vaccination status. This was contrary to the Proper Presentation  
and Privacy clauses of the codes. A majority of Panel members also found  
that the station violated the CAB Code of Ethics for other negative  
comments about the complainant.  
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards  
Council.  
APPENDIX A  
The Lockeroom is CKEA-FM’s (95.7 Cruz) morning show hosted by Lochlin Cross, Grant  
Johnson and James White. It airs weekdays from 5:30 am to 10:00 am. In between  
songs, the hosts discuss current affairs, pop culture and social issues and often share  
personal anecdotes. On February 10, 2022, around 6:15 am, the “Topic of the Day”  
segment was about differences of opinions on COVID-19 vaccination. The dialogue went  
as follows:  
Cross: 780-989-0957 if you ever want to phone or text the show. This might be a phone  
call conversation today. Actually, I’ll say it out loud right now. I hope we get a couple of  
phone calls on this.  
Johnson:  
Mm hm.  
Cross: First off, I want to address the, um, the hypocrisy, my own personal hypocrisy  
revolving around where we’re going to go here.  
Johnson:  
Okay.  
Cross: Okay. And I, I want to point it out because I want people to be aware of the fact  
that I’m aware of my own personal hypocrisy.  
Johnson:  
ʼKay.  
Cross: More than a couple of times over the last couple of months I have said that we  
need to, um, draw a line in the sand, start over and we need to start getting back to some  
sense of normalcy.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: And a lot times when I say things out loud it’s because it’s something that I’m  
dealing with –  
Johnson:  
You’re trying to work it out yourself.  
Cross: I’m trying to work it out in my own head and, um, and, and I know at times maybe  
it sounds like I, I’m being a little bit preachy. But it’s sort of my process, right? I’m at a  
point right now where I’m realizing that, as a society, myself included in that society, I need  
to sort of, okay, I need to stop hiding in my basement and I need to start trying to live my  
life as normally as I possibly can. I still want to follow the rules. I have been a rule follower  
through this whole pandemic.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: I’ve been trying to do the right thing. I’ve been trying to take care of myself, my  
family and, and others. Um, I, I’ve been vaccinated. Um, and that’s what I believe. That’s  
what I believe I needed to do.  
Johnson:  
Mm hm.  
Cross: I’m trying to appreciate others’ opinions on this. I am, honestly. But I will be very  
honest, I’m judgemental of those that didn’t have the same viewpoint that I have.  
15  
Johnson:  
Yeah?  
Cross: And another hypocrisy sort of element to this is I have commented multiple times  
that we need to work on that judgement sort of piece in, in life.  
Johnson:  
Yes.  
Cross: I think it’s actually killing us. I think the biggest problem we have on the planet  
right now is judgement. And I’m struggling with it.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: I, I’ll be honest. And I’ll paint a picture for you. And this is a stupid scenario, but  
it’s something that happened to me this week. Our friends group is planning to gather for  
Super Bowl on Sunday.  
Johnson:  
Yeah?  
Cross: At Kelly’s.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: Kelly’s is, is a, is a, is a spot we have in the past frequented. It’s –  
Johnson:  
Cross: It’s a watering hole.  
Johnson: Downtown.  
Cross: It’s a watering hole.  
Down on 104th?  
Johnson:  
Great place. Great food.  
Cross: Yes.  
Johnson:  
Great beers.  
Cross: And a bunch of people that we know like that place and sometimes we’ll go there  
to watch a, a UFC, a big UFC, a big boxing match, a big game like, like a football game  
like the Super Bowl. And there is somebody in our friends –  
Johnson:  
Where you famously got so drunk that an Uber wouldn’t take you after  
Grey Cup.  
Cross: That’s another story. [Johnson chuckles]  
Johnson: Was that Grey Cup or Super Bowl?  
Cross: Grey Cup.  
Johnson:  
Grey Cup.  
Cross: There’s a friend in our friends group and, god love him, he’s one of those guys you  
kind of want in your friends group. He has every tool known to man.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
16  
Cross: He can fix absolutely anything. He’s not great at it, but he can [Johnson laughs],  
he can fix just about anything. And he, he’s a good friend to have. He’s also that guy, and,  
and, again, I’m joking, but he’s also that guy that, if you need a body buried, you call [P.].  
Johnson:  
He’s got a place.  
Cross: He’s, he lives out on the, out on an acreage and he is that guy that would call, I  
could call him at three o’clock in the morning and go, “I killed Jimmy. I killed Jimmy. I need  
you to help me.”  
Johnson:  
We mentioned burning a car one time and he was, like, “No, you gotta do  
it, like you put it in, you start the fire in a chip bag –“  
Cross: I will never –  
Johnson:  
“And then it smoulders and ...”  
Cross: I will never need to get rid of a body. [others laugh] Okay? Let’s say that out loud.  
I’m just trying to point out the kind of friend that he is.  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: All right? I have avoided Weird [J.], which is his nickname in our friends group,  
[Johnson chuckles] because he’s not vaccinated. And I know he has convinced himself –  
and that’s his business – that he didn’t need to do that.  
Johnson:  
Cross: Right? Okay? I don’t agree with him. And I have avoided him.  
Johnson: Mm hm.  
Yeah.  
Cross: I have avoided his phone calls. I avoid his texts. And he’s planning on going to  
Kelly’s on Sunday. And I will be honest with you, my first instinct was “I don’t want to go  
now”. [Johnson laughs] And I’ll tell you why. Not because I don’t respect what he, ugh ...  
It was his choice not to get vaccinated. And I’m trying to respect that decision regardless  
of whatever it is that he, that, that, whatever the decision he made. I don’t want to sit down  
and have a conversation about “I told you so”.  
Johnson:  
Cross: ʼCause with the, with the restrictions lifting, which is I believe we need to do now.  
Johnson: Yeah.  
Yeah.  
Cross: I’m against the City putting in their own restrictions over and above what the  
Province is deciding to do for Alberta.  
Johnson:  
Yeah?  
Cross: I’m against that. My thought process revolving around this is I don’t want to have  
those conversations, like “I told you it was all ...!”  
Johnson:  
Cross: “See? See?!”  
Johnson: Yeah. Just trying to watch football and drink beer.  
Right.  
17  
Cross: Is that, is that, and I’m, literally, I was, like, “I’m staying home now.” And then I  
was, like, “Why am I doing that?”  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: What is wrong with me?  
Johnson:  
ʼCause I feel that way. Like, not that I’m not going, don’t want to go or  
anything, but I don’t want to have those conversations with people. It’s, like, ...  
Cross: It shouldn’t keep me at home.  
Johnson:  
No, it shouldn’t.  
Cross: Where’s everybody at right now? I, I thought that we could have a conversation  
about this this morning. These are my views. This is –  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: This is who, this is what I’m struggling with. Right? I’m struggling with the fact that  
we, regardless of what we think individually, we all have to just move on. Right?  
Johnson:  
Yeah.  
Cross: Are you going to be able to hang out with friends and family that had an opposing  
opinion to you over the last couple of years? All right. That’s, that’s our conversation this  
morning. And, and, like I said, call if you want. 780-989-0957.  
18  
APPENDIX B  
The Complaint  
The CBSC received the following complaint via its webform on February 15, 2022:  
Name of Station:  
95.7 Cruz FM  
Program Name:Lockeroom Topic of the Day  
Date of Program:  
Time of Program:  
Specific Concern:  
10/02/2022  
6:00AM  
On Feb. 10/2022 I was listening to the Lockeroom Topic of the Day – the topic was “Can  
you hang out with friends/family that had an opposing opinion” when Lochlin Cross went  
on to talk about how he had a friend that was not vaccinated and how the friends group  
was planning on going to watch the Superbowl at an Edmonton Pub – Kelly's – and he said  
that he didn't want to go if this friend was going.  
The problem that I have here with this podcast is that I happen to be that ‘friend’ that he  
mentioned. My name is [J. P.] and I am completely appalled and disgusted that Lochlin  
had the audacity to mention my vaccination status during his live broadcast. Medical  
information is private /confidential information – I did not give him permission to say my  
name or use me for his topic of discussion.  
During the live show my name was mentioned 3 times – I was referred to as “Weird [J.]”  
and then both Lochlin and Grant refer to my last name “[P.]”. Not only does Lochlin have  
the audacity to mention my private medical information on air, but he also refers to me as  
the friend that you could go to if you needed a body hidden. Grant then joins in and talks  
about how I mentioned how you could burn a car and start a fire with a chip bag – both of  
these statements are a direct defamation to my character. This is not the first time they  
have referred to me as someone they could go to if they needed a body hidden – it has  
been mentioned on several shows. In the past, I have expressed my concerns to Lochlin  
about not mentioning these kinds of derogatory things about me on the air and he said he  
wouldn't but here we are, yet again.  
Mentioning my vaccination status is the straw that broke the camel's back – he crossed the  
line with this one. After that show, I had friends, family and work acquaintances call me to  
tell me they had heard the show on the way to work – this has caused me huge  
embarrassment.  
I get the use of humor in broadcasting but constantly making comments/jokes at the  
expense of others says a lot about his character, or lack thereof. Please let me know if  
you have further questions as I would be happy to discuss further.  
19  
Broadcaster Response  
The station replied to the complainant on February 17 with the following:  
We review each complaint very seriously and I’m sorry to hear what happened. As you  
know, Lochlin is very personal and real on the air to a fault, where sometimes he forgets  
he has an audience. I’m in no way making an excuse for any of the hosts or coming to  
their defense, as this was not appropriate and I can assure you that steps have been taken  
to ensure this doesn’t happen again.  
If you would like to discuss this further, you can reach out to me anytime, [###-###-####].  
Once again, sincerest apologies.  
Additional Correspondence  
The complainant filed his Ruling Request on February 21 with the following comments:  
I am completely appalled with the response of Program Director - CKEA-FM (95.7 CRUZ  
FM) [C. M.]. His laissez-fair [sic] attitude in saying that Lochlin was just being real and  
forgets that he has an audience sounds a lot like [the Program Director] is condoning  
Lochlin's inappropriate behavior and that Lochlin will likely not get more than a slap on the  
hand.  
One would imagine that this industry requires some semblance of professionalism?  
Does this industry not operate within a Code of Conduct/Ethics as their guide? One which  
maintains the highest level of personal integrity, honesty and business ethics?  
Exposing one’s personal medical information on a live broadcast is unacceptable – no  
permission was given for this and medical information is private and confidential – end of  
story.  
Making comments directed towards me regarding hiding dead bodies/starting car fires  
infers that I take part in criminal activities or am a criminal – these comments are totally  
false. I consider these egregious statements to be slanderous and a defamation to my  
character – I hold a professional designation and have been in the same industry for 30  
years – these disparaging comments have caused me huge embarrassment as I had  
friends, family and colleagues reach out to me after that show.  
Due to the reasons above, and my unsatisfaction [sic] with the response from [the Program  
Director], I am requesting the CBSC to proceed with reviewing my complaint. If you have  
any further questions please reach out. I thank you in advance for your time and  
consideration in this matter.  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission