It seems logical that if the law is going to require litigants to do something, there should be a process in place setting out how they should do it.
But when it comes to notices to the media of applications for publication bans, judges often require them, but Ontario’s Superior Court has no standard rules for providing them. It’s a dilemma outlined by Justice Ian Nordheimer in last week’s Divisional Court ruling in A.M. v. Toronto Police Service.
Nordheimer was providing his reasons for his decision dealing with A.M.’s motion seeking an order allowing him to pursue his judicial review application using only his initials. On that issue, Nordheimer required notice to the media of the motion and gave directions as to which media outlets to provide it to.
After considering various cases dealing with publication bans and media access in the past, Nordheimer concluded that whenever a party is seeking to restrict access to a court proceeding, the media should have notice of the request. That includes, he found, motions seeking to use a pseudonym or initials in place of the party’s name.
But the dilemma, he noted, is that the court hasn’t set out a general process for giving notice, particularly when it comes to figuring out which media outlets the party should provide it to. “I contrast this with, for example, the situation in the Province of Nova Scotia where the Courts of Nova Scotia maintain a free e-mail subscription service to advise the media of applications made to the courts for publication bans and other similar court orders,” wrote Nordheimer.
“The courts in that Province provide subscribers with an e-mail message advising that an application has been made and when and where it will be heard. The courts in Newfoundland & Labrador and in British Columbia have similar procedures.”
If other provinces can figure it out, surely Ontario’s courts can do it, too. As Nordheimer noted, the lack of clarity means parties either have to figure out on their own whom to notify or go through the added expense of seeking directions from the court.
The issue isn’t new, of course, as there have been calls on Ontario to move on this issue for some time.
It’s time for it to do so.
But when it comes to notices to the media of applications for publication bans, judges often require them, but Ontario’s Superior Court has no standard rules for providing them. It’s a dilemma outlined by Justice Ian Nordheimer in last week’s Divisional Court ruling in A.M. v. Toronto Police Service.Nordheimer was providing his reasons for his decision dealing with A.M.’s motion seeking an order allowing him to pursue his judicial review application using only his initials. On that issue, Nordheimer required notice to the media of the motion and gave directions as to which media outlets to provide it to.
After considering various cases dealing with publication bans and media access in the past, Nordheimer concluded that whenever a party is seeking to restrict access to a court proceeding, the media should have notice of the request. That includes, he found, motions seeking to use a pseudonym or initials in place of the party’s name.
But the dilemma, he noted, is that the court hasn’t set out a general process for giving notice, particularly when it comes to figuring out which media outlets the party should provide it to. “I contrast this with, for example, the situation in the Province of Nova Scotia where the Courts of Nova Scotia maintain a free e-mail subscription service to advise the media of applications made to the courts for publication bans and other similar court orders,” wrote Nordheimer.
“The courts in that Province provide subscribers with an e-mail message advising that an application has been made and when and where it will be heard. The courts in Newfoundland & Labrador and in British Columbia have similar procedures.”
If other provinces can figure it out, surely Ontario’s courts can do it, too. As Nordheimer noted, the lack of clarity means parties either have to figure out on their own whom to notify or go through the added expense of seeking directions from the court.
The issue isn’t new, of course, as there have been calls on Ontario to move on this issue for some time.
It’s time for it to do so.
