Ryder Leigh Gilliland

The accused was charged with stunt racing contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving at 161 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401, exceeding the speed limit by 61 km/h.

The Crown relied on Lidar speed detection evidence from a trained officer.

The defence challenged the accuracy of the Lidar reading and suggested the officer's vehicle was moving when the reading was taken.

The court found stunt racing to be a strict liability offence with a due diligence defence available.

The Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

The accused was convicted.

Media organizations applied for access to portions of a sealed information to obtain (ITO) used to secure a search warrant in a criminal investigation.

The Crown had released a version with extensive edits, including redactions relating to innocent third parties.

Applying the open court principle and the Dagenais/Mentuck test under s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the Crown failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice justifying continued secrecy.

Assertions that the redacted material constituted non‑essential narrative or could harm innocent persons were unsupported by evidence.

The court ordered disclosure of the redacted material subject to limited exceptions for personal identifiers, certain references involving the mayor’s spouse, and portions potentially affecting the accused’s fair trial rights.

Media organizations sought certiorari to review and set aside a decision refusing access to a sealed information to obtain (ITO) used to obtain search warrants in a large criminal investigation.

The Crown argued that disclosure was prohibited by s. 193 of the Criminal Code because the ITO contained references to non-consensual wiretap interceptions.

The court held that s. 193 is an offence-creating provision and does not govern public access to court materials; instead, access to a sealed ITO is governed by s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code informed by the Dagenais/Mentuck test and the open court principle.

Alternatively, even if s. 193 applied, the disclosure fell within the exception in s. 193(2)(a) because an ITO constitutes evidence given in a criminal proceeding.

The prior order denying access was set aside and the applicants were permitted to proceed with their application to vary or terminate the sealing order.

Media organizations applied under section 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code to unseal and publish portions of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant in Project Traveller proceedings.

The court had previously ordered the unsealing of a heavily redacted version with a publication ban.

The accused sought to maintain restrictions on publication regarding: (1) evidence adduced at bail hearings, (2) criminal antecedents, and (3) references to a prior search warrant.

The court declined to rule on bail hearing evidence, continued the publication ban on criminal antecedents, and lifted the ban on prior warrant references except for the name of the individual searched.

Media organizations sought to unseal search warrant Information to Obtain (ITO) documents and related judicial authorizations from Project Traveller, a major criminal investigation.

The Crown sought to maintain certain redactions based on investigative technique privilege and wiretap disclosure restrictions under s. 193 of the Criminal Code.

The court ordered the unsealing of the May 31, 2013 ITO in its current redacted form with a temporary publication ban pending further submissions from counsel for the accused.

The court also ordered the Crown to provide redacted copies of remaining Project Traveller ITOs within 30 days of completing Stinchcombe disclosure to the accused, with a detailed chart explaining redactions.

Media organizations sought an order to terminate or vary a sealing order issued by Justice Marin on May 31, 2013, which sealed documents relating to search warrants executed by the Toronto Police Service between May 31 and June 14, 2013.

The Crown sought a six-month adjournment to vet the Information to Obtain (ITO) before disclosure.

The court found the Crown's proposed timeline unreasonable and contrary to the open court principle protected by the Charter.

The court ordered the Crown to provide a redacted version of the May 31 ITO on a counsel-only basis by August 27, 2013, with a return hearing scheduled for no later than September 12, 2013.

In six Ontario libel actions tied to statements posted by a U.S. company and later republished in Ontario newspapers, the appellants argued Ontario lacked jurisdiction or should defer to Illinois.

The Court held that defamation was presumptively connected to Ontario because publication occurred there through reading, downloading, and republication.

It concluded the appellants did not rebut jurisdiction and did not prove Illinois was clearly the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.