Globe & Mail v. Alberta et al., (2011) 520 A.R. 279 (QB)

• Judge: Tilleman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 520 A.R. 279 (QB);2011 ABQB 363

Globe & Mail v. Alta. (2011), 520 A.R. 279 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. JL.015

Globe & Mail, a division of CTV Globemedia Publishing Inc. (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and an Unnamed Company (respondent)

(1001 18560; 2011 ABQB 363)

Indexed As: Globe & Mail v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Tilleman, J.

June 8, 2011.

Summary:

Bascom, J., sealed the contents of an Information to Obtain (ITO). The applicant, who had no notice of Bascom, J.'s order, applied to quash the order, seeking unlimited access to the ITO subject to certain redactions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench exercised its discretion under s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code to vary Bascom, J.'s order and released an amended amended redacted version of the ITO to the public.

Civil Rights - Topic 2486

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Court proceedings - Publication bans - Bascom, J., sealed the contents of an Information to Obtain (ITO) - The applicant, who had no notice of Bascom, J.'s order, applied to quash the order, seeking unlimited access to the ITO subject to certain redactions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench exercised its discretion under s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code to vary Bascom, J.'s order and released an amended amended redacted version of the ITO to the public - The court considered the arguments with respect to restricting public access to prevent the risk to the proper administration of justice, the protection of innocent persons, commercial interests and the right to a fair trial - By releasing the redacted version of the ITO, but with names and identifying information redacted, the innocent persons could be protected, trial fairness could be protected, and the public could be prudently informed of the police investigation in an area the court believed Canadians viewed of great relevance to the health of their society.

Civil Rights - Topic 3143

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Pretrial publication of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2486 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4490

Procedure - Trial - Publicity restrictions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2486 ].

Cases Noticed:

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario - see R. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al.

R. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348; 2005 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 1].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 8].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609, refd to. [para. 10].

Ottawa Citizen Group Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 201 O.A.C. 208; 75 O.R.(3d) 590; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Phillips v. Vancouver Sun et al. (2004) 192 B.C.A.C. 250; 315 W.A.C. 250; 19 C.R.(6th) 55; 2004 BCCA 14, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Henry (I.W.M.) (2009), 270 B.C.A.C. 5; 454 W.A.C. 5; 2009 BCCA 86, agreed with [para. 17].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522; 287 N.R. 203; 2002 SCC 41, dist. [para. 19].

R. v. Flahiff (1998), 157 D.L.R.(4th) 485 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Toronto Star v. Canada et al., 2006 ONCJ 544, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Twitchell (M.A.) (2010), 509 A.R. 131; 2010 ABQB 692, refd to. [para. 30; footnote 1].

Counsel:

Matthew Woodley (Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer LLP), for the applicant;

Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C. (Pringle MacDonald & Bottos), and Kristine Robidoux Q.C. (Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP), for the respondent, an Unnamed Company;

Steven Johnston (Alberta Justice Specialized Prosecutions Branch), for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen.

This application was heard on May 27, 2011, by Tilleman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on June 8, 2011.