R. v. B.J., (2009) 479 A.R. 248 (PC)

• Judge: Miller, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 10, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 479 A.R. 248 (PC);2009 ABPC 248

R. v. B.J. (2009), 479 A.R. 248 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. AU.117

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. B.J. (defendant)

(080619737Y101001; 2009 ABPC 248)

Indexed As: R. v. B.J.

Alberta Provincial Court

Miller, P.C.J.

August 21, 2009.

Summary:

A newspaper requested access under s. 119(1)(s) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to the following exhibits: medical reports on the victim (the medical records); presentence reports, reports under s. 34 of the YCJA and psychological assessments of the accused youth (the reports); and a video of the accused robbing the victim.

The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application in part. The court granted access to the medical records and the reports in redacted versions. The court denied access to the video.

Editor's Note: For the decision sentencing this accused, see [2009] A.R. Uned. 582 and for a related decision, see (2009) 479 A.R. 233. Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 2494

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Access to exhibits - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 8866 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8866

Young offenders - Court or government records - Disclosure of - A newspaper requested access under s. 119(1)(s) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to the following exhibits: medical reports on the victim (the medical records); presentence reports, reports under s. 34 of the YCJA and psychological assessments of the accused youth (the reports); and a video of the accused robbing the victim - In allowing the application in part, the Alberta Provincial Court considered the following: the principle in s. 3 of the YCJA of enhanced procedural protection of a young person's right of privacy; that the principle of a presumption of diminished culpability was one of fundamental justice; the principle in s. 3 of the YCJA of an emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration; that a young person once stigmatized as a lawbreaker might, unless given help and redirection, render that a self-fulfilling prophecy; there were exceptions where the public interest in confidentiality outweighed the public interest in openness; that publication was noted to increase a youth's self-perception as an offender, disrupt the family's ability to provide support and negatively affect interaction with peers, teachers, and the surrounding community; that the court was entitled to regulate the use of exhibits by securing appropriate undertakings and assurances to protect competing interests; the importance of weighing the salutary effects of denying or limiting access to records with the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression and the efficacy of the administration of justice; and the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties - See paragraph 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 8866

Young offenders - Court or government records - Disclosure of - A newspaper requested access under s. 119(1)(s) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to the following exhibits: medical reports on the victim (the medical records); presentence reports, reports under s. 34 of the YCJA and psychological assessments of the accused youth (the reports); and a video of the accused robbing the victim - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application in part - Access to the medical records was granted only as the records were redacted - That access included only a description of the injuries resulting from the robbery, which had not been described in the agreed statement of facts - Access to the reports was granted only as the reports were redacted - The information not provided included names of third parties, financial information and medical information - The accused youth's interest in privacy and other considerations outweighed the newspaper's interest in the information - Granting access to the redacted medical records and reports had the salutary effect of press access to the court - Regarding the video, the newspaper sought to broadcast it and post it on a website - That meant that the video would remain permanently in the public domain - This was contrary to the purposes of the YCJA where access to records was to specified persons or classes of persons for specific periods of time - The video could have an impact on the public that would be fundamentally different from the printed word and the potential to create a widespread and negative impact on the public's response to the accused - Granting the newspaper access to the video was not in the interest of the proper administration of justice - The salutary effects of recognizing the principle of diminished culpability of young persons, of enhancing procedural protection for young persons' rights to privacy and of protecting privacy interests of the victim and witnesses outweighed the deleterious effects on free expression - The request for access to the video was denied - See paragraphs 32 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Halifax Herald Ltd. v. Sparks, J.F.C. (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 407 A.P.R. 321 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. R.D.S. - see Halifax Herald Ltd. v. Sparks, J.F.C.

R. v. N.Y. et al., [2008] O.T.C. Uned. A15; 2008 WL 2139681 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 6].

Muir v. Alberta, [1995] A.J. No. 1656 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Vickery v. Prothonotary, Supreme Court (N.S.) (1991), 124 N.R. 95; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 283 A.P.R. 181 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

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, refd to. [para. 10].

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. 10].

Quintal v. R. et al. (2003), 335 A.R. 14; 2003 ABPC 79, refd to. [para. 11].

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. 12].

R. v. Toronto Star Newspaper Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. D.B. (2008), 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

F.N., Re (2000), 255 N.R. 250; 191 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 577 A.P.R. 181 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Leskovar v. N.B. et al. (2005), 196 O.A.C. 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. M.C.R. (2004), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 269; 694 A.P.R. 269 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. S.F., [2007] O.J. No. 4772 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Société Radio-Canada v. Nouveau-Brunswick (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 459; 130 N.R. 362; 119 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 300 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. A.A.B. (2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 90; 774 A.P.R. 90 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [2006] O.T.C. 405 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Cairn-Duff (W.D.) (2008), 468 A.R. 117; 2008 ABQB 576, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Sylvester (D.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. C34; 222 C.C.C.(3d) 106 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas, Young Offenders Law (1997), p. 215 [para. 21].

Counsel:

S. Ward, for the applicant;

W. Marke, for the Crown;

D. Holman, for the defendant.

This application was heard on August 10, 2009, by Miller, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on August 21, 2009.