Ryder Leigh Gilliland

The media applied to unseal search warrant materials related to a murder investigation.

The application judge ordered partial unsealing.

Both an accused (Gardiner) and the media appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Gardiner's appeal, finding no error in the partial release.

The Court also dismissed the media's appeal, noting that while the application judge's reasons were inadequate for appellate review, remitting the matter would interfere with a publication ban already imposed by the trial judge.

The Toronto Star made a freedom of information request for data from two police firearms databases, SOURCE and FATE.

The Adjudicator ordered partial disclosure of the SOURCE database but denied access to the FATE database under the law enforcement intelligence exemption.

Both the Ministry and the Star sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision regarding the FATE database but quashed the order disclosing the SOURCE database, finding that the Adjudicator unreasonably interpreted the 'law enforcement matter' exemption.

The Toronto Star made a freedom of information request for data from two police firearms databases, SOURCE and FATE.

The Adjudicator ordered partial disclosure of the SOURCE database but denied access to the FATE database under the law enforcement intelligence exemption.

Both the Ministry and the Star sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision regarding the FATE database but quashed the order disclosing the SOURCE database, finding that the Adjudicator unreasonably interpreted the 'law enforcement matter' exemption.

In the context of a Reference directed by the Minister of Justice regarding a 1959 murder conviction, the Crown applied for a production order under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code against third-party journalists.

The journalists had produced a documentary about the case and interviewed several witnesses who were now providing fresh evidence.

The journalists resisted, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to issue a production order against a third party for investigative purposes.

The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction to order production where it is in the interests of justice to assist in determining the admissibility of fresh evidence.

The court ordered the production of two of the three retained video recordings.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the meaning of a publication in a defamation action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the respondent's publication did not say or imply the appellant was guilty of impropriety, only that he was suspected of it.

The Court also agreed that meanings from other publications could not be imputed to the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants were previously successful in their appeal to stay a libel action brought by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants their costs of the appeal and the proceeding before the motion judge on a partial indemnity scale.

The parties could not agree on the quantum of costs for the motion.

The appellants sought $32,773.37.

Noting that the case involved a novel application of the real and substantial connection test in a libel context and was a matter of public interest, the court fixed the costs of the motion at a modest $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent sued the Washington Post and three of its reporters for defamation regarding two articles published in 1997.

At the time of publication, the respondent lived in Kenya and the newspaper had minimal circulation in Ontario.

The respondent moved to Ontario three years later and commenced the action.

The appellants brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and found no real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario.

The appeal was allowed and the action was stayed.

The Crown obtained search warrants under the Provincial Offences Act relating to a meat packing business.

The Crown subsequently obtained an ex parte sealing order for the warrants and informations, arguing disclosure could identify a confidential informant and interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.

Media outlets successfully applied to quash the sealing order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies to all discretionary court orders that limit freedom of expression and freedom of the press, including sealing orders at the investigative stage.

The Court found the Crown failed to meet its burden, as it relied only on a generalized assertion that publicity could compromise the investigation rather than demonstrating a serious and specific risk.

The appellants, defendants in a libel action, sought a stay of proceedings or security for costs after one of the plaintiffs disappeared with unpaid costs orders.

The motion judge denied the stay but ordered the remaining plaintiffs to post security for costs under rule 56.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that the Libel and Slander Act exclusively governed security for costs in such actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Act and the Rules can co-exist, the motion judge erred in applying rule 56.09 because no relief was being granted to the plaintiffs to which a security term could attach.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a defamation claim against police and media respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the words in question could not be read as defamatory and reported only true facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order below was refused.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.