R. v. Roberts, 2021 ONSC 8116
Court File No. CR-21-00000059-OOBR-NJ
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
VAUGHAN OSCAR ROBERTS
R U L I N G
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SMITH,
Remotely on October 25, 2021, a KINGSTON, Ontario proceeding
APPEARANCES:
G. Skerkowski
S. Pieters
Counsel for the Crown
Counsel for Vaughan Roberts
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
W I T N E S S E S
WITNESS
Examination
In-Ch.
Cr-
Examination
Re-
Examination
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT NUMBER
ENTERED ON PAGE
Legend
[sic] – indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) – indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered:
November 30, 2021
Transcript Completed:
December 1, 2021
Ordering Party Notified:
December 1, 2021
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021
R U L I N G
SMITH J:
The Crown seeks a publication ban pursuant to Section 517 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Roberts opposes this request. Section 517 provides that if an accused requests a publication ban it is mandatory. It is discretionary if requested by the Crown.
Counsel for Mr. Roberts provided a 2007 decision called R. v. Steele in support of his position. The Crown accurately points out that this decision did not deal with a bail hearing. However, I believe that the reasoning in this decision is applicable to the circumstances of this case and I adopt it.
The Crown raises two points. The first is that the ban is necessary to avoid the tainting of prospective jurors given that without a publication ban and repeat information that would be readily available to them. The second is with the witnesses, similar to the juries' arguments, the witnesses could have access to evidence that is detailed at a bail hearing including video statements, text messages and other types of evidence. It is argued that without a ban there would a real concern regarding the integrity of the evidence.
I disagree with the Crown's position. As noted in the R. v. Steele decision, the risk to trial fairness must be grounded in the evidence. Similar to the R. v. Steele decision I find that the risk is speculative. I am not satisfied that the Crown's references to the evidence that may be heard at this bail hearing creates any risk in this case that the juries or witnesses would be tainted. Also this trial is likely not going to be heard for at least one year, if not more, any facts that are recorded would likely have been forgotten.
I find that in this particular case, a quote that I read in the R. v. Steele decision to be quite applicable:
Commonsense tells us that the public knowledge is at times fleeting matters of this nature.
The Crown's application for a publication ban is denied.
...WHEREUPON THE EXCERPT REQUESTED WAS COMPLETED
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Joan Russell, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Vaughan ROBERTS in the Superior Court of Justice held at 5 Court Street, Kingston, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 0911_ COUD 20211025_084944_20_SMITHM11.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
November 18, 2021
(Date) (Signature of Authorized Person)
Joan Russell