File:HMQ v Rebecca Reid 2019 OCJ 19-6210.pdf

From Ad IDEM / CMLA

Revision as of 16:31, 10 July 2019 by Anita Mielewczyk (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
HMQ_v_Rebecca_Reid_2019_OCJ_19-6210.pdf(file size: 205 KB, MIME type: application/pdf)


File Index

The following index was taken from the files content:
ontario court justice date file ottawa 19-6210 between: her majesty the queen applicant and- rebecca reid respondent -and- citizen division postmedia network inc and canadian broadcasting corporation before norman boxall decision released july affected parties meaghan cunningham counsel for crown oliver abergel defendant richard dearden anastasia semenova application was brought publication ban sealing order relating proposed victim impact statement this case lisa macl eod. -2- has pleaded guilty threatening criminally harassing macleod between february march during period time she sent over one hundred emails left seven voice mail messages that are angry nature voicemail have been filed exhibits plea. would like submit but will only can assured its contents not published broadcast. accordingly interest obtaining information macleod's should one. statements criminal code when determining sentence imposed offender whether discharged under section respect any offence shall consider prepared accordance with describing physical emotional harm, property damage economic loss suffered result commission victim. inquiry soon feasible after finding guilt event imposing inquire prosecutor reasonable steps taken provide opportunity prepare referred subsection adjournment own motion may adjourn proceedings permit present evidence satisfied interfere proper administration justice. -3- form must writing using part xxvlll procedures established program designated purpose lieutenant governor council province which exercising jurisdiction. presentation request reading it; presence close proximity support person victim's choice; outside room behind screen other device allow see presenting manner considers appropriate. photograph them themselves opinion disrupt presented someone acting behalf individual proceedings. conditions exclusion unless arrangements made judge watch means closed-circuit television otherwise permitted communicate while watching presentation. consideration considering take into account portions relevant determination disregard portion. -4- concerning admissible important make clear mcleod witness complainant stage proceeding found right statement. victims bill rights s.c ifa required appropriate sentence. 722(1 canada role serve number purposes sentencing process. they assist providing enhance perception ultimately community's confidence legitimacy system; also help instill sense responsibility his conduct; more fully understanding effect thus itself; inform public itself. -5- reason advised describe significant effects these offences had personal professional life well- being. however due intensely private well very employment cause undue trauma were available public. choose all subject order. [11 emphasize seeking view there deprive participate system application. [12 addition allowing requiring sets out act relates reproduced below. protection security every their considered authorities system. from intimidation retaliation -6- necessary measures protect retaliation. privacy identity protected offence. testimonial aids appearing participation views convey about decisions affect those considered. jurisdiction requested? [13 media argue sought argues exists either common law pursuant code. -7- [14 argues: courts placed strong emphasis giving full access courtroom heard cases ensuring done seen done. dagenais corp s.c.j 104, mentuck [2001 s.c.r 442, new brunswick [1996 unfettered. noted bellefontaine supreme held cbc restricting where will; innocent unnecessary harm; prevent psychological harm witnesses; interests encourage reporting sexual protecting complainants. stratton oncj test same: obtain party satisfy two-part first show serious risk because alternative less intrusive cannot second demonstrate benefits outweigh negative including free expression accused fair trial efficacy -8- vice onca para submits both orders deprived further accused's case. permitting understand nor being [15 statutory without powers certainly power type analysis does ocj sought? [16 therefore authority derived expressly impliedly enabling legislation i.e hynes scc [17 specific argument assigned hear derives control process includes "necessary particular successfully justly adjudicated lawyers association -9- [18 ancillary described rothstein lil/es follows likewise court's oversee conduct necessarily implied grant function affirmed apply doctrine implication tribunal: conferred statute construed include granted practically accomplishment object intended secured regime (atco gas pipelines ltd alberta energy utilities board)j. [200611 s.c.c 51) although bastarache referring administrative tribunal, same rule courts. [19 majority minority judgments recognized appoint amicus curiae karakatsanis ability (para appointing adjudicated" [20 least refuse removed record preliminary curiae. [21 [2011 s.c.r. position absence applicable provisions decide how used ensure orderly analogy sitting dealt with. [22 "cbc arose context superior explicitly judges having said some orderly, constitutional exhibits. [23 think fairly existence extent complicated unclear justice's could justly. [24 within code: witnesses against presiding than sections begin who preside determined judicial district place. factors age witness; witness's mental disabilities any; hearing; offence; needs retaliation; needed anyone known society's encouraging process; importance testimony case; effective alternatives making circumstances; salutary deleterious order; factor relevant. adverse inference drawn fact section. [25 permits relate use aid witness. long individual's engaged threats security. set 486.7(3 conclude promotes system, unlike s.486.5 require written notice provided [26 scope limited broad enough authorize bans content statements. [27 plain suggests scope: [28 believe possible particularity potential find solely aids. conclusion [29 concerns requested. -13- [30 different factual evidentiary basis might establish necessity leading law. [31 concern [32 definitively answer questions requested met burden. applied assuming [33 agreement existed prohibit applies discretionary openness [34 furthermore intrinsically involved regardless essentially test: para.44. foundation [35 affidavit constable virgin. [36 states publically family feel safe such all. [37 convincing court. [38 double hearsay conclusory falls far short establishing contained therein preconditions argued fails macleod. protective place [39 points alleged simply [40 agree weaknesses strength difficult high degree certainty knowledge actual general description harm. [41 recognize impossible dilemma puts put best effectively detailed expose seeks avoid chose ban. [42 material exposure [43 procedural protections [44 foremost compelled oath [45 protections. [46 722(5 provides presented: [47 importantly automatic cross-examination c.c.c ont c.a [48 circumstances mandatory [49 paragraph relevance current [50 favours declining [51 minimal assistance neither granting [52 [53 note compellable. [54 encourages phase trial. [55 [56 [57 public's know severely impacted [58 even proceed sufficient suffer public, [59 decline [60 creates apparent benefit [61 open principle democracy places burden displace presumption openness. [62 goes informing denial denies deny makes. [63 want insensitive seek [64 uncommon suspect many wishes keep [65 maximum acknowledging [66 nevertheless [67 day imposes completely just proceeds hearing [68 prohibiting opposed limiting [69

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeDimensionsUserComment
current16:31, 10 July 2019 (205 KB)Anita Mielewczyk (Talk | contribs)

The following page links to this file:

Personal tools