THE EDMONTON SUN, a DIVISION of SUN MEDIA CORPORATION Appellant (Respondent) - and ~
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SCC Court File No. 32865 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA) BETWEEN: THE EDMONTON SUN, A DIVISION OF SUN MEDIA CORPORATION Appellant (Respondent) - and ~ CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EDMONTON JOURNAL, A DIVISION OF CANWEST MEDIAWORKS PUBLICATIONS INC., BELL GLOBEMEDIA PUBLISHING INC., CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS THE GLOBE AND MAIL and CTV TELEVISION INC. Appellants (Respondents) - and ~ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent (Appellant) ~ and- MICHAEL JAMES WHITE Respondent (Appellant) FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT THE EDMONTON SUN (Pursuant to Rule 42 ofthe Rules ofthe Court ofCanada, SOR/2006-203) FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP 2900,10180-101 Street 1420, 99 Bank Street Edmonton, AB T5J 3V5 Ottawa, ON KIP 1H4 Barry Zalmanowitz, Q.C. / Peter D. Banks K. Scott McLean / Corey Villeneuve Tel: (780) 423-7344 / (780) 423-7391 Tel: (613) 783-9699 Fax: (780) 423-7276 / (780) 423-7276 Fax: (613) 783-9690 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for The Edmonton Sun Ottawa Agents for the Appellant The Edmonton Sun REYNOLDS. MIRTH, RICHARDS & FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP FARMERLLP K. Scott McLean / Corey Villeneuve Fred Kozak QC and Matthew Woodley 1420· 99 Bank Street 3200 Manulife Place Ottawa, ON KIP 1H4 10180 - 101 Street Phone: 613.783.9699 Edmonton, AB T5J 3W8 Fax: 613.783.9690 Phone: 780.425.9510 Email: [email protected] Fax: 780.429.3044 [email protected] Email: [email protected] and Agents for Appellants [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP James Robb, Q.c. Henry S. Brown, Q.C. 3rd Floor, 9833 109 Street 2600 ,,' 160 Elgin St Edmonton, AB T5K 2E8 Ottawa, ON KIP 1C3 Phone: 780422.5402 Phone: 613.233.1781 Fax: 780.422.1106 Fax:· 613.788.8433 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen Agents for Her Majesty the Queen DAWSON STEVENS DUCKETT SHAIGEC SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP Laura Stevens, Q.c. Colleen Bauman 300, 9924 106 Street 500 - 30 Metcalfe St. Edmonton, AB T5K 1C4 Ottawa, ON KIP 5L4 Phone: 780.424.9058 Phone: 613.235.5327 Fax: 780.425.0172 Fax: 613.235.3041 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for Michael White Agents for Counsel for Michael White 11 Page TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I - OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS. ". ".,,,0>,,0>,,, 1 A. Overview . 1 B. Background to White Case . 1 C. Decisions Below in Constitutional Challenge , 2 (1) R. v. White, 2007 ABQB 359 2 (2) R. v. White, 2008 ABCA 294 4 PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE 5 PART III-STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT 5 A. Preliminary Issues 5 (1 ) What is the proper procedure for third party challenges to legislation in criminal cases? 5 (2) Did'the Court ofAppeal have jurisdiction to hear the appeal? 7 B. Does s. 517 ofthe Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, infringe s. 2(b) ofthe Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms ""., ,... 10 (1 ) Section 517 . 10 (2) Section 2(b) ofthe Charter is Infringed 12 C. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 ofthe Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms? .. , ,'." .. ,."".".... 14 (1) No Hierarchy ofRights 14 (2) The Oakes Test..................................................................... 15 (a) The Objective ofSection 517 is to Protect the Accused's Right to a Fair Trial ". "".. " "..".. " 15 (b) Rational Connection? ,.. 20 1. Lack ofRational Connection - s. 517 applies to non-jury trials ' " "...... 21 111 Page 11. Lack ofRational Connection - s. 517 is a blanket ban which includes information favourable to the accused ., , ,............ 22 111. Lack ofRational Connection - s. 517 leads to incomplete reporting which can itselffuel uninformed speculation " ,.. , ,. 22 IV. Lack ofRational Connection- s. 517 is inherently inconsistent with the system'sfaith in juries ""., .. , "., .. ,. ,.. " .. "."""' ,, 22 v. Lack ofRational Connection - s. 517 is inherently inconsistent with the tertiary groundfor bail ".", .. , .. "", " .. ,."., , 23 VI. Conclusion on Rational Connection ,' 23 (c) Minimal Impairment Test is Not Satisfied ., ,.,............. 24 1. Minimal Impairment Test Not Satisfied - the blanket ban in s. 517 is overbroad ,.', .. ', 24 11. Minimal Impairment Test Not Satisfied the mandatory nature ofthe ban in s. 517 is a blunt tool , , ,.......... .,................... 24 111. Minimal Impairment Test Not Satisfied - the "certainty" argument .......... ,............. .. .... ,.. ,...."... 25 IV. Minimal Impairment Test Not Satisfied - Section 517's minimizingfeatures are illusory .,,' , 28 v. Dagenais/Mentuck Test 29 VI. Conclusion on Minimal Impairment Test , ,.,... 32 (c) Deleterious effects outweigh any salutary effects ,.. ,,.. ,. 33 1. Section 517 is oflimited efficacy - bulk are non-jury trials 33 11. Section 517 is oflimited efficacy right to afair trial can be effectively protected by a discretionary ban , ,.. 33 111. Section 517 is oflimited efficacy - strength ofjuries ,.. ,.. ,................ 33 IV, Section 517 is oflimited efficacy - long time to trial .,.... ,.. , ,,, ".. 34 v. Section 517 is oflimited efficacy - similar information may already be in public domain ,.... 34 IV Page VI. Section 517 is oflimited efficacy - other safeguards " .. , ,.. ,.... .. ,."......... 34 VB. Section 517 is oflimited efficacy - does not change right to bail ., .. ,., .. ,.. ,., ,, , 35 V111. Google is neutral "." .. ,.. ,.. " .. ,.. , , ,., , 35 IX. Deleterious effects ofs. 517 are drastic - unconstitutionally overbroad violation ofs. 2(b), ,., 35 x. Deleterious effects ofs. 517 are drastic - erodes public confidence , 36 Xl. Deleterious effects ofs. 517 are drastic - inconsistent with the tertiary ground (s. 515(10) (c)) .. ,... ,. ,,.... 38 D. Ifthe infringement is not saved by s. 1 ofthe Charter, what is the remedy? 39 E. Conclusion............................................................................. .... 39 PART IV - SUBMISSION AS TO COSTS ,.. ,.. ,.. "., .. , ,...... 39 PART V- STATEMENT OF THE ORDER SOUGHT ....... ,.................................... 40 PART VI-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.,."." , " , , 41 PART VII - STATUTORY PROVISIONS......... 43 PART I- OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview 1, In Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario, Fish 1. explained: In any constitutional climate, the administration ofjustice thrives on exposure to light -- and withers under a cloud ofsecrecy. I 2. Section 517 ofthe Criminal Code2 requires a judge, ifrequested by the accused, to impose a blanket publication ban on argument, evidence, information and reasons in bail proceedings. As such it covers, in a cloud ofsecrecy, an important component ofour criminal justice system depriving the public ofunderstanding. 3. The case at bar also presents important procedural issues which remain unresolved for third party challenges to legislation in criminal proceedings. B. Background to White Case3 4. In the summer of2005, Michael White engaged the public's sympathy and assistance in his search for Liana, his missing wife. National media broadcast his pleas for assistance. The public helped search and eventually Liana's body was found. Michael White was charged with her murder. 5. Michael White was released on bail and the public was outraged. Petitions circulated for his return to custody. Everyone was prohibited from publishing the judge's reasons for granting bail because ofthe mandatory publication ban provided by a pre-Charter amendment to s. 517 ofthe Criminal Code. Michael White had requested and the Court was required to grant the publication ban. The media were not permitted to inform the public about the legal principles applicable to bail and how they were applied by the judge to Michael White, and the public were I Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188 at para. 1 [Edmonton Sun Authorities ("ESA") Tab 43]. 2 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 as amended. 3 Court ofQueen's Bench Reasons at paras. 1 - 10 [Joint Record ofthe Appellants ("JRA") ~ Tab D]; Court of Appeal Reasons at paras. 1 - 4 [JRA - Tab I]. 2 not permitted to receive this information from the media at the time when their interest in receiving it was engaged. 6. The Crown pursued a s. 680 bail review ofMichael White's bail. The Crown succeeded, ironically on the tertiary ground, i. e., public confidence in the administration ofjustice, and Michael White was returned to custody>4 The publication ban covering the Queen's Bench bail proceedings remained in place, but the panel ofthe Court ofAppeal hearing the s. 680 bail review held that the s. 517 publication ban did not apply to the Court ofAppeal proceedings.5 Consequently, even though the Queen's Bench bail proceedings remained subject to the s. 517 publication ban, Michael White had to apply for a common law ban pursuant to the Dagenais/Mentuck test to cover the Court ofAppeal proceedings.6 Michael White applied for such a ban, but the Court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck test was not satisfied in this case and refused to grant a ban covering the s. 680 bail review. 7 As such, most ifnot all ofthe information that was covered by the s. 517 ban could be published as it was also material before the Court ofAppeal in the s. 680 bail review. C. Decisions Below in Constitutional Challenge (1) R. v. White, 2007 ABQB 359 7, The Edmonton Sun and other media outlets challenged the publication ban originally ordered by Brooker J. in conjunction with a constitutional challenge to s. 517.8 The challenge was brought by notice ofmotion in the criminal proceedings before Brooker J., who was the Court of Queen's Bench justice who had granted Michael White's bail and the mandatory publication ban pursuant to s. 517, The original s. 517 publication ban covering the Queen's Bench bail proceedings still remained in force despite similar information in the s. 680 review at the Court ofAppeal not being covered by the publication ban. 4 Court ofAppeal Reasons on s.