R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al., (1998) 54 O.T.C. 167 (GD)

• Judge: Trafford, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 10, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 54 O.T.C. 167 (GD)

R. v. Brown (L.A.) (1998), 54 O.T.C. 167 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.139

Her Majesty the Queen v. Lawrence Augustus Brown, Gary George Francis, O'Neil Grant, Emile Mark Jones, Thomson Canada Limited, the Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and the Toronto Sun

Indexed As: R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Trafford, J.

February 10, 1998.

Summary:

Jones and two co-accused were charged with manslaughter. A third co-accused was charged with first degree murder. Restrictions were placed on publication, including a ban on a ruling that prior statements of a Crown witness in the case against Jones were inadmissible to prove the truth of their contents (Ruling No. 9). Proceedings against Jones were stayed. The trial against the co-accused continued. The Crown applied under s. 648(1) of the Criminal Code for a publication deferral order, if necessary, respecting all information which was the subject of publication restrictions prior to the stay of the proceedings against Jones, until the jury retired to consider its verdict for the other co-accused. The Crown also sought a publication deferral order respecting any information or comments concerning the stay of proceedings until the jury retired to consider its verdict. The Crown did not seek to prohibit the publication of the fact of the stay, the fact that this application was made or the fact that a publication deferral order was, or could be made respecting this application. The media asserted that mandatory prohibition under s. 648(1) was not applicable to the trial of Jones, because his trial was completed.

The Ontario Court (General Division) rejected the media's assertion. The court was conducting one trial for all accused, not one trial for each accused. The prohibition under s. 648(1) attached to the proceedings upon the indictment against Jones and the co-accused. For the purposes of s. 648(1), the trial was still in progress. The court held that releasing all of the information regarding Ruling No. 9 and the stay of proceedings would create a substantial risk to the fairness of the co-accused's trial that could not be remedied by other reasonably available options. However, the court released a judicial summary containing information relating exclusively to the prosecution of Jones.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802

The prosecutor - Role of - See paragraph 9.

Civil Rights - Topic 1859

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Restricted access to courts - See paragraphs 10 to 12 and 20 to 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 2486

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Court proceedings - See paragraphs 10 to 12 and 20 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 22

General principles - Prosecution of crime - Function of the Crown prosecutor and Attorney General - See paragraph 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 4305

Procedure - Jury - General - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - See paragraph 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 4348

Procedure - Jury - Evidence - Prohibition against publication of information obtained in jury's absence - See paragraphs 14 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 4492

Procedure - Trial - Restrictions on publications affecting fairness of trial - See paragraphs 14 to 29.

Words and Phrases

Trial - The Ontario Court (General Division) discussed the meaning of "trial" as used in s. 648(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 15, 16.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Boucher (1954), 110 C.C.C. 263 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 9].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 71 C.R.(3d) 358, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Toten (W.P.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 321; 14 O.R.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 11].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609, refd to. [para. 11].

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; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 11].

Vickery v. Prothonotary Supreme Court (N.S.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 671; 124 N.R. 95; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 283 A.P.R. 181; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 65, refd to. [para. 11].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Hubbert (1975), 15 N.R. 143; 11 O.R.(2d) 464 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Keegstra (1991), 114 A.R. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Parks (C.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 15 O.R.(3d) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 13].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 20; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 985; 84 N.R. 296; 14 Q.A.C. 161; 50 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Paul, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 621; 42 N.R. 1; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 648(1) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borovoy, Allan, When Freedoms Collide: The Case For Our Civil Liberties (1988), p. 142 [para. 11].

Cameron, Jamie, Comment: The Constitutional Domestication of Our Courts - Openness and Publicity in Judicial Proceedings Under the Charter (1986), in The Media, the Courts and the Charter, p. 340 [para. 11].

Lapofsky, David M., Open Justice: The Constitutional Right to Attend and Speak Out About Criminal Proceedings (1985), p. 242 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Michal Fairburn and Kenneth Campbell, for Her Majesty the Queen;

Thomas Dungey and Allison Ratsoy, for Lawrence Augustus Brown;

David Midanik, for Gary George Francis;

Karen MacArthur and Heather MacArthur, for O'Neil Grant;

David Midanik, for Emile Mark Jones;

Peter Jacobsen and Alexander Scott, for Thomson Canada Ltd.;

Paul Schabas, for the Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.;

Carolyn Silver, for the Toronto Sun.

This case was heard before Trafford, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following judgment on February 10, 1998.