Electronic Public Access
to Court
Recent Developments in Canada:
 Dec
2, 2002:
|
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, prior
to a scheduled hearing, on an application by Mr. Pilarinos
to declare the issue moot.
|
Jan
17, 2002:
|
The Supreme Court of Canada granted the media leave
to appeal the decision of the trial judge in R.
v. Clark not to televise the proceedings.
|
Sep
24, 2001:
|
The trial judge in R.
v. Clark dismissed the application of the media
to televise the proceedings. There were five days of
argument.
|
July
13, 2001:
|
The Supreme Court of Canada denied CBC leave to appeal
the October 11, 2000 decision of Mr. Justice Wimmer
in the Thatcher case.
|
May
25, 2001:
|
A large number of media organizations, including Ad
IDEM, brought an application to televise the criminal
trial of former B.C. Premier Glen Clark. The trial is
set to begin on September 17, 2001.
|
April
18, 2001:
|
The B.C. Supreme Court announced that it adopted a
policy
permitting camera access to courts on consent. A
longer paper
discussing the court's position in more detail is heavily
weighted against camera access. The court is seeking
comments on its proposed
guidelines by
November 1, 2001.
|
Oct
11, 2000:
|
CBC's application to televise the faint hope hearing
of Colin Thatcher in Saskatchewan was denied by Mr.
Justice Wimmer. He preferred to wait for the results
of the Canadian Judicial Council study. CBC's application
for leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court
of Canada awaits the court's response.
|
Sep
28, 2000:
|
At their annual meeting in Fredericton, the Canadian
Judicial Council decided to take an in-depth look
at the impact of television in the courts, and formed
a committee on the subject.
|
Sep
25, 2000:
|
In British Columbia, CBC applied to have television
camera access to R. v. McSorley, the trial of
a hockey player for aggressive stick work during an
NHL game. While the judge in that case was encouraging
about the concept, he did not consider the merits of
CBC's application, preferring to recommend that his
colleagues on the BC Provincial Court bench consider
it further.
|
July
18, 2000:
|
Mr. Justice McKinnon of the BC Supreme Court ruled
that there is a constitutional right to have a camera
at a trial, with the onus on those opposed to demonstrate
the need for limits. In R.
v. Cho et al., CBC's application in mid-trial
to televise the remaining portion was granted in part.
Over the objections of all lawyers for the defense and
Crown, CBC was permitted to broadcast the closing addresses
of counsel to the jury, as well as the judge's charge
to the jury. Remaining testimony was not permitted to
be televised in the interests of fairness, because earlier
testimony was not televised.
|
Background:
In the past five years, the Supreme Court of Canada has permitted
almost all its proceedings to be televised by CPAC, with periodic
coverage of newsworthy cases by other broadcasters. The Nova
Scotia Court of Appeal began its experiment with such coverage
on January 1, 1996. The Federal Court of Appeal began its
experiment on January 1, 1995.
For the media position and a summary of developments in Canada
between 1984 and 1994 in this area, see Electronic
Public Access To Court: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, a
paper presented to Open Justice, a conference of the Canadian
Institute for the Administration of Justice.
For an earlier review of applicable Canadian law and practice,
see Electronic Public Access to
Court: A Proposal for its Implementation Today, a paper
presented at "The Media, the Courts, and the Charter",
a conference held at Osgoode Hall Law School in March 1985.
It is published in The Media, The Courts, and The Charter,
P. Anisman & A.M. Linden, eds., Carswell, Toronto, 1986.
Model Guidelines were
published as an attachment.
|
