Vancouver Sun (Re)

Last updated
Vancouver Sun (Re)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: 2003: December 10;
Judgment: 2004: June 23.
Full case nameThe 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
Prior historyAPPEAL from the Supreme Court of British Columbia
RulingAppeal allowed in part
Court membership
Reasons given
MajorityIacobucci and Arbour JJ., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie and Fish JJ
Concur/dissentBastarache 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".

Contents

Facts

Section 83.28 Orders and Investigative Hearings

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:

  • attend an investigative hearing;
  • submit to questioning by police at the hearing;
  • to bring all documents and other materials in their possession to the hearing [1]

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. [2]

Investigation of Air India Bombing

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. [3] 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. [4]

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. [5]

Lower Court Decision

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. [6]

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.

Decision

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.

  1. That the name of the Named Person be made public.
  2. 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". [7]

Reasoning

The majority of the Court, represented by Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. felt strongly that [8] [9]

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." [10]

Dissent

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.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guantanamo military commission</span> U.S. military tribunals

The Guantanamo military commissions were established by President George W. Bush – through a military order – on November 13, 2001, to try certain non-citizen terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison. To date, there have been a total of eight convictions in the military commissions, six through plea agreements with the defendants. Several of the eight convictions have been overturned in whole or in part on appeal, mostly by U.S. federal courts.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well-known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, even if one party wishes to plead evidence to the contrary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Priscilla Richman</span> American judge (born 1954)

Priscilla Richman is an American lawyer and jurist serving as the chief United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She was previously a justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

<i>Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<i>Mackeigan v Hickman</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Pickton</span> Canadian serial killer

Robert William "Willy" Pickton is a Canadian serial killer and former pig farmer. He is suspected of being one of the most prolific serial killers in Canadian history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada</span>

The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada is a non-profit, national self-regulatory organization (SRO). Established through the merger of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (IDA) and Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS) on June 1, 2008, IIROC oversees all investment dealers and trading activity on debt and equity markets in Canada.

Andrée Ruffo is a former Quebec judge named to the Bench in 1987.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russell Brown (judge)</span> Canadian Supreme Court Justice (born 1965)

Russell S. Brown is a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was nominated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to replace outgoing justice Marshall Rothstein and has been serving in the role since August 31, 2015. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he was a justice at the Alberta Court of Appeal, and before that a law professor at the University of Alberta.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec</span>

The Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec is a specialized first-instance tribunal of the province of Quebec, Canada, that has the jurisdiction to hear and judge litigations concerning discrimination and harassment based on the prohibited grounds stipulated in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as well as concerning the exploitation of elderly or handicapped persons and affirmative action programs.

The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.

Wills, Estates And Succession Act of British Columbia (WESA) is a provincial statute that governs the law of inheritance in British Columbia, Canada. The bill was introduced in Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on September 24, 2009 and received royal assent on October 29, 2009. WESA amalgamated and in some cases replaced five earlier pieces of legislation. These include: Estate Administration Act RSBC 1996, c. 122,Probate Recognition RSBC 1996, c. 376, Wills Act RSBC 1996, c. 489, Wills Variation Act RSBC 1996, c.Law and Equity Act RSBC 1996, c. 253, s. 46, 49, 50 & 51 and Survivorship and Presumption of Death Act RSBC 1996, c. 444. WESA has given the court curative discretion under Part 5, and in Section 60 allows the court to invalidate and supplant testamentary instruments that are deemed by the court defective as regards proper maintenance and support of the will-maker's spouse or children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yosef Elron</span> Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel

Yosef Elron is an Israeli judge who currently serves as a Justice in the Supreme Court of Israel.

<i>Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya</i> Canadian legal decision

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.

<i>Kuzych v White</i> Series of Canadian labour law cases

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 Ship Builders 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.

References

  1. "Re Vancouver Sun". CanLii. Appendix: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
  2. "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43". Paragraph 16: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. Supreme Court of Canada (June 23, 2004). "Vancouver Sun (Re)". Para. 5. Retrieved 18 July 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  4. Supreme Court of Canada (June 23, 2004). "Vancouver Sun (Re)". Paragraphs 11 and 12. Retrieved 18 July 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. British Columbia Supreme Court (July 24, 2007). "Vancouver Sun (Re), 2003 BCSC 1330 (CanLII)". www.CanLii.org. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  6. British Columbia Supreme Court (July 24, 2007). "Vancouver Sun (Re), 2003 BCSC 1330 (CanLII)". www.CanLii.org. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  7. "Vancouver Sun (Re)". Supreme Court of Canada. Para. 58. June 23, 2004. Retrieved 23 July 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  8. canlii.org: "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43 (CanLII)"]
  9. "Vancouver Sun (Re)". Supreme Court of Canada. Para. 24. June 23, 2004. Retrieved 23 July 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  10. "Vancouver Sun (Re)". Supreme Court of Canada. Para. 58. June 23, 2004. Retrieved 23 July 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)