The applicant brought a motion under s. 490(15) of the Criminal Code seeking access to two videos seized by police during the Project Traveller investigation.
The applicant argued access was necessary to protect his reputation and obtain legal advice regarding potential civil remedies, as media coverage linked him to the alleged recording of a controversial video involving a public official.
The court held that although the applicant had a potential legal interest in the seized material, he failed to establish that access to the videos was necessary to advance that interest in a concrete way.
The court emphasized that s. 490(15) requires both a legal interest in the seized item and necessity of access to advance that interest.
Balancing these considerations and the risks of disclosure relating to ongoing prosecutions and public sensitivity, the court refused access.
