Leo Alder

An application was brought by eight young persons to vary a previous court order to explicitly prevent media from disseminating their identifying information, including through private social media messages, in relation to charges of second-degree murder.

The court found that a reporter's actions of contacting individuals on social media and disclosing a young person's name and charges contravened the spirit of the Youth Criminal Justice Act's publication ban under section 110, even if not an intentional breach of the specific prior order.

The court clarified that "publication" under the YCJA includes indiscriminate communication on social media that risks making information known to the general public.

The applicant challenged the voluntariness of statements made to police and alleged breaches of sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the statements were voluntary and that there were no breaches of sections 10(a) or 10(b).

However, the court found a breach of section 9 due to an arbitrary detention, as the arrest was premature and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

Applying the R. v. Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the admission of the evidence (utterances and handgun) would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the minor nature of the Charter breach, the voluntary nature of the statements, and society's interest in the adjudication of serious firearms offences.

The application to exclude the evidence was denied.