R. v. A, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 992

A, B and C Appellants

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

indexed as: r. v. a

File No.: 21753.

1990: May 17.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.

order to release file

Courts -- Proceedings -- Publicity -- In camera hearing in Supreme Court of Canada -- File, including judgment and reasons for judgment, ordered sealed to protect the lives of individuals involved -- Circumstances which warranted conducting the matter in confidence no longer present -- File, including judgment and reasons for judgment, released.

ORDER to release file, including judgment and reasons for judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada.

//The Court//

The following is the judgment delivered by

The Court -- On February 15, 1990 this Court made an order which provided that "[a]ll proceedings in this appeal, including the judgment and reasons for judgment, shall be sealed until further order". That order is now discontinued because the circumstances which warranted it no longer obtain. The history of the matter is set out in these reasons.

On January 11, 1990, an application by Douglas Jaworski, Maureen Jaworski and Reginald Jaworski (referred to as A, B and C respectively) for leave to appeal was heard by five members of this Court. An order that the proceedings be held in camera was granted based on representations that disclosure at that time posed a serious risk to the safety of the applicants Maureen and Reginald Jaworski. This order, which was public, provided in part as follows:

The request for an order that no person shall publish or disclose in any way the contents of the Court file is also granted, except, of course, this judgment.

This order further provided that if leave to appeal were granted, the applicants could reapply to the Court for a determination as to whether the appeal itself would be heard in camera.

On January 11, 1990, after hearing argument, leave to appeal was granted, the enforcement of the subpoena was stayed pending appeal, and the hearing of the appeal was set for February 5, 1990 at 10:30 a.m. Subsequently, the hearing date was advanced to February 2, 1990 when that date in the Court's schedule became available.

On February 2, 1990, prior to the hearing of the appeal, an application was made in open court for an order that the appeal be heard in camera and that all proceedings, including the judgment and reasons for judgment, be sealed. After hearing argument and based on oral representations made in open court that disclosure would place in jeopardy the lives or safety of B and C, the Court granted the application. The order granting this application was made in open court as well.

On February 15, 1990, judgment in the appeal was delivered*, but by reason of the circumstances referred to above, the order of February 2, 1990 was reaffirmed and all proceedings, including the judgment and reasons for judgment, were ordered sealed with the exception that the parties and the judge presiding at the rehearing received a copy of the reasons of the Court.

On April 26, 1990, the parties were notified that unless cause was shown prior to May 11, 1990 why the reasons for judgment of the Court and the proceedings should not be made public, the Court intended to do so. On May 3, 1990, counsel for the appellants, A, B and C, advised the Court that they did not wish to show cause why the Court's order should be continued beyond May 11, 1990. On May 10, 1990, a letter was received from counsel for the Attorney General of Canada which has been considered by the Court.

It now appears to the Court that the circumstances which warranted conducting this matter in confidence are no longer present. Both the appellants and Crown have been given an opportunity to show cause why this might not be the case, but no valid reason has been shown for continuing the order of February 15, 1990. In light of these developments, the Court is of the view that the details surrounding this proceeding can be made public, and the Court file, including the reasons rendered in the appeal, can be released. It is so ordered.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellants: Stikeman, Elliott, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondent: John C. Tait, Ottawa.

* See [1990] 1 S.C.R. 000.