WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. N.S., 2026 ONCJ 485
DATE: 2026 06 25
COURT FILE No.: Sault Ste Marie 22-13302419
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
N.S.
Before Justice H.A. Mendes
Heard on June 9, 2026
Reasons on Application to lift Publication Ban released on June 25, 2026
Adrianna Mucciarelli..................................................... counsel for the Crown
N.S. ....................................................................................... on his own behalf
[1] The Crown brought a 278.93 application seeking to have the 278.95(1)(c) publication ban lifted with respect to an oral decision released on January 28, 2025 regarding a 278 records application.
[2] The 278.93 application was originally returnable on February 11, 2026 but was adjourned to February 20, 2026 as there were issues with service. On February 20, 2026, the application was adjourned once again as the accused, who does not have counsel of record, was not provided with the Zoom coordinates. However, the accused was in the process of retaining counsel and counsel was provided with a copy of the application as a courtesy.
[3] Further, neither the complainant nor their counsel who was appointed for the 278 records application hearing were served. As such, the application was adjourned to March 13, 2026 for the aforementioned issues to be rectified.
[4] On March 13, 2026, the complainant through counsel confirmed that they took no position with respect to the 278.93 application. The accused, who still did not have counsel of record opposed the application and argument proceeded.
[5] The Crown seeks to lift the publication ban pursuant to 278.95(1)(c) on the basis that there is still a valid 486.4 publication ban in place which protects the complainant’s privacy and identification. Further, the Crown submits that it is in the interest of justice that the publication ban be lifted as the 278 records application decision will assist future cases.
[6] The accused opposes the lifting of the publication ban as he submits that this case affects his reputation and image. He does not want details of this case in the news and he is worried that he will be removed from his place of religious worship.
[7] Almost two hours after the application was to commence and was argued, counsel who was in the process of being retained by the accused attended court and sought an adjournment of the matter to allow time for counsel to be retained to argue the application. The Crown opposed the request for the adjournment.
[8] The court permitted that a further date for supplemental argument on the application be made given that there was no delay or urgency to the Crown’s application given that it was brought well over a year after the 278 records application decision was released. Counsel for the complainant was also to be provided with the transcript of the decision which was given orally.
[9] The date of June 9, 2026 was set for the continuation of the application hearing for the accused to make supplemental arguments. On June 9, 2026 counsel who was in the process of being retained did not attend and sent an agent to seek a further adjournment of the application hearing. The matter was stood down for counsel to attend to address the matter but he did not attend and the court was not prepared to grant any further adjournment. As such, the application hearing was concluded with the submissions on behalf of the parties from March 13, 2026.
[10] The publication ban is in place in order to protect the privacy interests and identification of the complainant. Again, in the case before me, the complainant does not oppose the lifting of the publication ban.
[11] In reviewing the transcript of the oral decision, there is no identifying information regarding the complainant, nor the accused for that matter. Furthermore, an additional safeguard of initializing the case name for the purposes of publication can be ordered.
[12] As such, provided the case name is initialized for the purposes of publication, I find that it is in the interest of justice to lift the publication ban under 278.95(1)(c), as there continues to be a 486.4 publication ban in place to protect the complainant, and the decision concerning 278 records applications may be of assistance to other litigants, jurists and academics.
[13] Given this decision, the court shall arrange for the case to be initialized and the oral decision of January 28, 2025 to be published.
Released: June 25, 2026
Justice H. A. Mendes
Ontario Court of Justice