Hunter Fox

The applicant, a retired television broadcaster charged with criminal harassment, sought a publication ban on his name, arguing that publication would violate his rights under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and cause irreparable damage to his reputation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Charter does not protect a privacy interest to prevent media publication of an accused's name, nor does publication compromise the presumption of innocence.

The court also held that the common law Mentuck test was not met, as the applicant's concerns were purely personal and lacked a public interest component.

The court addressed submissions regarding the anonymization of its decision and the inclusion of a warning, in light of existing publication bans from underlying criminal and family court proceedings.

The Crown sought to protect victim identities through initialization and a substantial warning.

Post Media agreed to initials, while CBC opposed anonymization, citing the open court principle and lack of evidence for harm.

The court ultimately decided to initialize the principal parties in its decision and attach a modified warning to comply with publication bans while upholding the open court principle.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The defendants, including Justin Trudeau and Benjamin Netanyahu, brought a motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action initiated by the plaintiff, "Bride ov Christ" (represented by Lizi Peter), as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim, naming 817 defendants, alleged "conspiracy of silence, intentional infliction of mental suffering and ostracism" preventing recovery from trauma-related identity disorder and a gastro-intestinal condition, seeking over $160 million in damages.

The court found the pleading to be a clear example of querulous litigant behavior, noting the absence of recognized torts for "conspiracy of silence" or "ostraciism" and a lack of material facts to support the claim of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The Crown brought a motion to compel undertakings from "paper trail" affiants of the respondent media corporations during cross-examinations related to an upcoming civil contempt application.

The respondents argued that cross-examinations are narrower than discoveries, affiants are fact witnesses, and the requested inquiries were irrelevant or potentially incriminating.

The court found the questions regarding the authors' knowledge of publication bans and the CBC's system for tracking such bans to be relevant.

It ordered the affiants to make the requested inquiries, noting that the information appeared readily available and not unduly onerous to obtain.