![]() | This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.(May 2017) |
Vancouver Sun (Re) | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hearing: 2003: December 10; Judgment: 2004: June 23. | |
Full case name | The Vancouver Sun v Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of British Columbia, “The Named Person”, Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik |
Citations | [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, 2004 SCC 43 |
Docket No. | 29878 [1] |
Prior history | APPEAL from the Supreme Court of British Columbia |
Ruling | Appeal allowed in part |
Court membership | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Iacobucci and Arbour JJ., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie and Fish JJ |
Concur/dissent | Bastarache and Deschamps JJ. |
Re Vancouver Sun is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case regarding the open court principle, freedom of the press and publication bans. The open court principle is the "right of public access to the courts".
Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code operates with respect to investigations of terrorism offences. The section allows police to apply for a court order to compel a potential witness to:
The questioning of the witness occurs before a judge.
Section 83.28 also allows for the exclusion of the public and media from the hearing. [3]
In 1985, two acts of terrorism caused the deaths of two baggage handlers in Japan and the 329 passengers and crew of Air India Flight 182. [4] The Air India bombing was the largest mass murder in Canadian history.
In 2004, two accused were on trial for conspiracy to murder and other offences relating to those events.
As part of the investigation, the Crown obtained a court order requiring a potential Crown witness, a "Named Person", to attend a judicial investigative hearing for examination. The order was made pursuant to section 83.28 of the Criminal Code .
The investigative hearing was to be held in camera , meaning that the hearing would not be open to the public or press.
A reporter from the Vancouver Sun newspaper became aware of the investigative hearing when she recognized lawyers from the Air India terrorist attack and attempted to follow them as they entered a closed courtroom. The reporter was barred from the courtroom and in response the newspaper filed a legal challenge for (1) access to material filed in the court proceedings and (2) a declaration that no court proceedings should be held in private. [5]
The application was opposed on the basis that the confidentiality was necessary to preserve the integrity of the investigation and to prevent mischief in the Sikh community against the witness. [6]
The Supreme Court of British Columbia published a Synopsis of Reasons for Judgment which described the general nature and the outcome of the proceedings. The court ruled that the synopsis was sufficient public disclosure. [7]
The appeal of the BC Supreme Court decision was made directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. The British Columbia Court of Appeal did not hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada ordered that:
#The appeal be allowed in part and that the order made by the investigative judge, Justice Holmes, be varied.
- That the name of the Named Person be made public.
- That the proposed judicial investigative hearing be held in public, subject to any order of the presiding judge that the public be excluded and/or that a publication ban be put in place regarding aspects of the anticipated evidence to be given by the Named Person.
The Court, citing paragraph 83.28(5)(e), also ordered the investigative judge to "review the continuing need for any secrecy at the end of the investigative hearing and release publicly any part of the information gathered at the hearing that can be made public without unduly jeopardizing the interests of the Named Person, of third parties, or of the investigation". [8]
The majority of the Court, represented by Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. felt strongly that [9] [10]
The open court principle has long been recognized as a cornerstone of the common law... The right of public access to the courts is “one of principle . . . turning, not on convenience, but on necessity”... “Justice is not a cloistered virtue”... “Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity... Public access to the courts guarantees the integrity of judicial processes by demonstrating “that justice is administered in a non-arbitrary manner, according to the rule of law”... Openness is necessary to maintain the independence and impartiality of courts. It is integral to public confidence in the justice system and the public’s understanding of the administration of justice. Moreover, openness is a principal component of the legitimacy of the judicial process and why the parties and the public at large abide by the decisions of courts. The open court principle is inextricably linked to the freedom of expression protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and advances the core values therein... The freedom of the press to report on judicial proceedings is a core value. Equally, the right of the public to receive information is also protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression... The press plays a vital role in being the conduit through which the public receives that information regarding the operation of public institutions... Consequently, the open court principle, to put it mildly, is not to be lightly interfered with.
The court noted "[e]ven in cases where the very existence of an investigative hearing would have been the subject of a sealing order, the investigative judge should put in place, at the end of the hearing, a mechanism whereby its existence, and as much as possible of its content, should be publicly released." [11]
In their reasons for dissent, Justices Bastarache and Deschamps noted that public access to investigative hearings would normally defeat the purpose of the proceedings by rendering them ineffective as an investigative tool.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.
The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.
Rocco Galati is an Italian-born Canadian lawyer who specializes in cases involving constitutional law. He is the founder and executive director of the Constitutional Rights Centre.
William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from January 8, 1998 to October 27, 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few appointed directly from private practice. On his retirement from the Court, he was described by The Globe and Mail as "arguably the country's premier judge", by La Presse as "probably the most influential judge in Canada of the last decade" and by the Toronto Star as “one of the strongest hands on the court.”
Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the law of standing in Canada. In particular, the case sets out the criteria a public-interest group must meet in order to be allowed to mount a constitutional challenge in court.
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1; however the Customs Act must be read to place the onus of proving obscenity on the state, not the importer.
Mackeigan v Hickman, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on judicial independence. The Court unanimously held that to require a federal judge to explain his or her decisions would violate the principle of judicial independence.
The British Columbia Legislature raids resulted from search warrants executed in 2003 on the British Columbia Parliament Buildings, the seat of the British Columbia Legislature, the government of the Canadian province of British Columbia. It became a collective term for the associated criminal proceedings and ensuing controversies. Court hearings stemming from the raids began in Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2007. The proceedings brought to light questions concerning the propriety of the sale of railway company BC Rail. In October 2010, ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bob Virk pleaded guilty to breach of trust and receiving a benefit for leaking information about the BC Rail bidding process.
Geoff Plant, is a Canadian lawyer and retired politician known for his interest in citizen's legal and electoral rights and aboriginal rights. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of British Columbia, representing Richmond-Steveston from 1996 to 2005. A caucus member of the British Columbia Liberal Party, he served in the cabinet of Premier Gordon Campbell as Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations from 2001 to 2005.
Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.
The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.
In Canadian administrative law, judicial review is for courts to ensure "administrative decision-makers" stay within the boundaries of the law. It is meant to ensure that powers granted to government actors, administrative agencies, boards and tribunals are exercised consistently with the rule of law. Judicial review is intended as a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.
Fish J. wrote a unanimous verdict for the Court, rejecting Crown contentions that the investigative procedure ought to be withheld from public view, in this case of insalubrious slaughter of cattle at the Aylmer Meat Packers plant in Toronto. In fact, the scandal that ensued had a part in changing the leadership of the province.
Philomena Mbete Mwilu is a Kenyan lawyer and judge, who has served as the Deputy Chief Justice of Kenya and Vice President of the Supreme Court of Kenya since 28 October 2016. Following the retirement of Chief Justice David Maraga, and before Martha Koome was appointed as the Chief Justice, she served as Acting Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya from 11 January 2021 to 19 May 2021, making her the first woman to hold that office.
Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held, in a 5–4 decision, that a private corporation may be liable under Canadian law for breaches of customary international law committed in other countries.
R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.
Kuzych v White was a series of Canadian labour law decisions from British Columbia, dealing with a membership dispute between a trade union and a member of the union. Myron Kuzych, the union member, publicly objected to the closed shop favoured by the Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders Union of Canada (BISU). The union cancelled his membership, resulting in him being fired by the shipyard where he worked as a welder. Kuzych challenged the termination in the British Columbia courts, and eventually the matter was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain, at that time the highest court of appeal in the British Commonwealth. The Judicial Committee ruled that Kuzych should have exhausted his appeals within the union before going to court, and upheld his expulsion from the union.
Casavant v British Columbia, BCCA 159, was a landmark environmental legal case heard at the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2020. A unanimous court allowed the appeal.
Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp, 2022 SCC 41 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of arbitration laws on the authority of a receiver appointed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link)