↑ Michaud v Quebec (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 167 (SCC), 3 SCR 3, per Lamer CJ, at to 5 paras 3 to 5.v Ontario, 2003 CanLII 13 (ONSC), 176 CCC (3d) 432, per McKinnon J ↑ R v Verrilli, 2019 NSSC 263 (CanLII), per Arnold J, at para 56Ĭf.↑ Globe & Mail v Alberta, ibid., at para 10.↑ Globe & Mail v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 363 (CanLII), 520 AR 279, per Tilleman J, at para 10.↑ Re Regina and Atout, 2013 ONSC 1312 (CanLII), OJ No 899, per Campbell J.↑ Application by the Winnipeg Free Press, 2006 MBQB 43 (CanLII), 70 WCB (2d) 54, per McKelvey J, at para 10.v Ontario, ibid.Īttorney General of Nova Scotia v MacIntyre, 1982 CanLII 14 (SCC), 1 SCR 175, per Dickson J v Ontario, 2005 SCC 41 (CanLII), 2 SCR 188, per Fish J Residual Authority to Control AccessĮven where there is no sealing order granted, the court may also restrict and prohibit access to court-record materials where it would "subvert" the "ends of justice" or "might" be used for an "improper purpose". The predominant view suggests that sealing orders function as an order restricting access to the court file rather than as a confidentiality order. This duty is part of the Crown's Stinchcombe disclosure obligations. The burden is on the Crown to unsealing judicial authorization materials. ![]() The exception to this burden include the mandatory sealings provisions under s. Where a court document is subject to a discretionary sealing, the burden is upon the party seeking to maintain the sealing order. ![]() Once the search is complete the presumption moves to one of openness. Ĭonfidential police investigations require "a high level of secrecy to be effective" at least until after the warrant is executed. It is the responsibility of the Attorney General to be the responding party to any application to unseal where privilege may be at issue. Sealing orders are to be the exception to the rule of openness. (a) the ends of justice would be subverted by the disclosure for one of the reasons referred to in subsection (2) or the information might be used for an improper purpose and (b) the reason referred to in paragraph (a) outweighs in importance the access to the information. 487.3 (1) On application made at the time an application is made for a warrant under this or any other Act of Parliament, an order under any of sections 487.013 to 487.018 or an authorization under section 529 or 529.4, or at a later time, a justice, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge of the Court of Quebec may make an order prohibiting access to, and the disclosure of, any information relating to the warrant, order or authorization on the ground that
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |