[floatingatoll]

If the records are willfully destroyed by the reporter, the government could choose to file charges that go beyond "contempt of court" — Canadian law defines a "terrorist offence" to include, among others, accessory after the fact. The prosecution would presumably then need to demonstrate that the reporter knowingly hindered the prosecution of a terrorist and that this fits the available laws. Also, destroying one's records to protect one's own reputation as a reporter might well qualify as "for personal gain", further worsening their chances of having a plausible defense.

(d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2001_41/F...

[larkeith]

Would this apply if the reporter had destroyed the data prior to the government request? What about in the case where such a destruction were a condition set by the terrorist in order to proceed with the interview?

[floatingatoll]

Those are useful questions to consider, but as with the risks I describe, ultimately would require a court decision.