Patricia M. Latimer

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought access to and copies of exhibits from a preliminary inquiry involving four correctional officers charged in the death of Ashley Smith.

The charges were dropped, and the exhibits were transferred for a coroner's inquest.

The application judge granted CBC access but restricted copying to portions of the video played in open court and prohibited copying the footage of Smith's death.

The Court of Appeal allowed CBC's appeal, holding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies to media requests for exhibits and that the open court principle includes the right to copy exhibits in full, absent convincing evidence of a serious risk to the administration of justice or other protected interests.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application to direct the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case regarding his jurisdiction to hear certain evidence.

The Commissioner had ruled he had jurisdiction to hear evidence from a complainant regarding a recent sexual assault by teenagers and the subsequent police investigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Commissioner committed a jurisdictional error by misconstruing the Order in Council that established his mandate.

The Court held that the inquiry's subject matter was limited to historical sexual abuse of young people by persons in authority or positions of trust, and the proposed evidence fell outside this scope and was not reasonably relevant.

The respondent, a licensed driver and trainer, was disciplined by track judges for providing an improper urine sample.

He appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission, which held a hearing de novo.

At the hearing, the Commission allowed the senior track judge from the initial panel to testify.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding this created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the track judge had relevant factual evidence to give and his testimony did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the Commission Panel's ruling did not show preconceived views or give undue weight to his evidence.