Publication Bans 1996



Footnotes

Footnote: 1     Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 1 1 (hereinafter the "Charter"), sections 7 and 11(d).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 2     For example, section 11(d) of the Charter provides that all accused persons must receive a
"fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 3     For a discussion of privacy as a right subsumed within section 7, see: R. v. Beare, R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387, at pp. 412-413 per La Forest J. Section 486(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada expressly recognizes the interests of certain witnesses, such as complainants in sexual assault matters and witnesses under 18 years of age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 4     In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Dagenais (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 239 (C.A.), Dubin C.J.0. observed at page 245 that "it was the common law courts that first recognized, as a fundamental legal right, the right of an accused to a fair trial ... in the absence of any legislation by Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 5     (1995), 36 C.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 6     [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 7     Id. at p. 183.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 8     Supra. n. 4, at p. 244.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 9     S.C. 1960, c. 44. This statute has been characterized as a "quasi-constitutional instrument', see: Hogan v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574, Laskin J. (as he then was) stated that "[t]he Canadian Bill of Rights is a half-way house between a purely common law regime and a constitutional one; it may aptly be described as a quasi-constitutional document": Hogan, supra. at p. 579. By virtue of section 5(2), the Bill of Rights applies only to federal laws and institutions: see Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd. ed, loose-leaf), Volume II, at p. 32-3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 10     [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 11     Id. at p. 129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 12     [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 13     R.S.A. 1980, c. J-1, s. 30.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 14     Id. at p. 1336
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 15     Id. at p. 1339
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 16     Id. at p. 1340.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 17     [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 18     Id. at p. 406.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 19     [1995] B.C.J. No. 95 (C.A.), January 24, 1995, Vancouver Registry No. CA017480.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 20     Id. at paragraph 38.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 21     Anderson, "The Open Court and a Free Press: A View from the Bench" (1994), 24 L.S.U.C. Gazette 64, at p. 66.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 22     [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 23     [1994] 3 S.C.R. 952
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 24     Supra. n. 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 25     See: R. v. T.S. (1993), 109 Sask. R. 96, 82 C.C.C. (3d) 352 (C.A.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 26     [1993] 3 S.C.R. v.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 27     Supra. n. 22 at p. 894.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 28     Id. at p. 881.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 29     Id. at p. 877.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 30     Id. at p. 878.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 31     Supra. n. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 32     Supra. n. 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 33     Supra. n. 22, at p. 891.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 34     Id.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 35     Id. at p. 891.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 36     Id. at pp. 884-887.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 37     Id. at p.886. Unique problems arise with trans-border publications and individual trial judges craft their own solutions. For example, it is interesting to note that LeSage A.C.J. O.C. (as he then was), the trial judge in the trial of R. v. Paul Bernardo "warned the U.S. news media that they would be barred from the courtroom for the duration of the trial" if they chose to publish details of matters dealt with in the absence of the jury: The Globe and Mail, "Phone call followed missed curfew, trial told", May 24, 1995 at p. A-3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 38     R. v. Thomson Newspapers Ltd. et. al. (sub. nom. R. v. Homolka), Ont. C.A., December 22, 1994; leave to appeal denied, S.C.C. No. 24579. May 4, 1995: S.C.C. Bulletin at p. 773. In that ruling the Court of Appeal quashed the media's appeal from Kovac J.'s order limiting publication of the proceedings in R. v. Homolka until the murder trial of her co-accused husband, Paul Bernardo was completed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 39     Id. at p. 881. A subsequent commentator offered yet another option, a stay of proceedings. W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., counsel for C.B.C. in Dagenais suggested that in certain exceptional circumstances "it may be more important to get out the news than to have a trial". He explained that "in a situation where there are widespread media reports about alleged government corruption, bribery and payoffs, the court might elect to stay the trial of a particular individual involved and give preference to having the public informed": "S.C.C. lays down law on publication bans", The Lawyers Weekly, January 6, 1995, at p. 16. Quare whether such a circumstance would advance the public interest in any meaningful way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 40     Supra. n. 22 at p. 891.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 41     See especially: R. v. Clement (1821), 106 E.R. 918; Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 (H.L.) and Re Church of Scientology of Toronto and the Queen (No. 6) (1986), 27 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. H.C.), at pp. 206-208.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 42     Supra. n. 23.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 43     Supra. n. 38.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 44     At least one trial court has made an order of this kind post-Dagenais. In R. v. Warren, [1995] 3 W.W.R. 379 (N.W.T.S.C.), de Weerdt C.J. imposed certain conditions on the publication of exhibits introduced at the murder trial of Roger Warren until all proceedings against the accused, and any appeal, were finally ended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 45     Supra. n. 22 at p. 891.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 46 See for example: R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265 and R. v. L.(D.O.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 47 See for example: B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214 and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson. (1995), 44 C.R. (4th) 277 (S.C.C.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 48 In R. v. Adams,[1995] 4 S.C.R. 707 the Court held that a ban ordered pursuant to section 486(4) could not be revoked without the consent of the Crown and the complainant: Id. at pp. 723-724. The Court opined that a revocable ban would not provide the certainty necessary to encourage victims of sexual offences to report them to the police, which was Parliament's goal in enacting the section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 49 Supra. n. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 50 Id. at p. 134
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 51 (1995), 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at p. 24 per Lamer C.J. and Sopinka J. referring with approval to R.v. Ryan (1991), 69 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (N.S.C.A.) at p. 230.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 52 S.C.C., March 29, 1996, No. 24305, Supreme Court of Canada, 1996 Bulletin of Proceedings at p. 583
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 53 Id. at p. 584
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 54 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) et. al. (1994), 32 C.R. (4th) 334 (N.B.C.A.), at p. 338 per Hoyt C.J.N.B. (Turnbull J.A. concurring) approving (1993), 143 N.B.R. (2d) 174 (Q.B.) per Landry J. The third appellate judge, Anger J.A., also sustained the constitutionality of section 486(1) on the basis that it manifested no violation of section 2(b) whatsoever. In his view it was not necessary to embark upon an inquiry under section 1 of the Charter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 55 Beare, supra. n. 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 56 See for example: Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56 and P.(J.), supra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 57 (1993), 109 Sask. R. 161 (C.A.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 58 Id. at p. 163.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 59 [1996] O.J. No. 1300 (Gen. Div.) also referred to as R. v. Bernardo re: French Estate v. Ontario (A.G.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 60 Id. at Appendix B, Schedule 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 61 Id.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 62 Id. at para. 42 and para. 46.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 63 See: Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 379 (Man. Q.B.) and Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada and two other actions (1986), 29 C.C.C.(3d) 203 (Ont. H.C.J.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 64 R. v. Schafer, et. al., [1994] 7 W.W.R. 670 (Sask. C.A.); leave to appeal denied [1994] 3 S.C.R. xi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 65 See: section 517(1) of the Criminal Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 66 Section 517(1)(a) and (b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 67 (1984), 10 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 68 (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 312 (N.B.Q.B.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 69 See especially: R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, at p. 603 and R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, at p. 745 per La Forest J. dissenting in the result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 70 Supra. n. 22 at p. 870.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 71 Id. This was also the approach to selecting the appropriate forum advocated by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in McConachie, supra. n. 57 at p. 163 per Tallis J.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 72 See e.g.: R. v. Laporte (1993), 84 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (Sask. C.A.) and R. v. Rodrigue (1995), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Y.T.C.A.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 73 Supra. n. 22 at p. 868.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 74 Id. at p. 869.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 75 Id. at p. 869.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 76 Id. at p. 872.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 77 Id. at p. 868.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 78 See especially: R. v. Primeau, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. Laba, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965; R. v. Keegstra, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; Adams, supra. n. 48 and L.L.A. v. A.B. (1995), 44 C.R.(4th) 91 (S.C.C.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 79 Primeau, id. at p. 68.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 80 Id. at p. 69.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 81 T.S., supra. n. 23 at p. 961.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 82 Supra. n. 22 at p. 861.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 83 Id. at p. 861.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 84 Id. at p. 858.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 85 Id. McLachlin J. in her separate, concurring opinion echoed the Chief Justice's call for legislative reform at pp. 947-948:

I endorse his call for legislative action to provide clear and consistent Charter remedies, and strike the appropriate balance between the rights of those who allege their Charter rights are infringed, on the one hand, and the private and public interest that criminal trials proceed expeditiously and without interruption, on the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 86 L.L.A. v. A.B., supra. n. 78 at pp. 105-106 per L'Heureux-Dubé J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 87 See e.g.: L.L.A, id., at p. 97 per Lamer C.J. and Sopinka J. and, at pp. 104-106 per L'Heureux-Dubé J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 88 This is clearly the option preferred by LaForest J. in Dagenais, supra. n. 22 at p. 894. By way of comparison in England, section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1981 (U.K.), c. 49, provides the authority for a court to issue a publication ban "where it appeals to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent..." An immediate appeal to the Court of Appeal with leave from such an order is provided for by section 159(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, 1988 (U.K.), c. 33. The section provides further that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 89     [1990] 1 S.C.R. 851, affirming Chouinard J.A., dissenting in the Court of Appeal (1988), 42 C.C.C. (3d) 220.

Next Annual Meeting

2018 Conference (Centennial)

Delta Hotel

Québec City, QC

August 12 - 16, 2018