CITATION: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States v. Sokolovski, 2026 ONSC 211

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-90000130-00MO

DATE: 20260112

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF THE UNTIED STATES

– and –

ROLAN SOKOLOVSKI

Applicant

Milica Potrebic and Heather Graham, for the Attorney General of Canada

Scott K. Fenton and Michelle Psutka, for the Applicant

HEARD: January 9, 2026

Application for Publication Ban

JUSTICE PETER BAWDEN

I. INTRODUCTION

1Rolan Sokolovski was provisionally arrested under an extradition warrant requested by the United States. He is sought for offences including conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine with intent to distribute, conspiracy to export cocaine, and conspiracy to launder money. The United States alleges that Mr. Sokolovski laundered funds for Ryan Wedding’s drug trafficking organization, (“DTO”) which is said to have transported large quantities of cocaine from Colombia to Canada through Mexico and the U.S., and to have hired hitmen to kill rivals or anyone posing a threat to its international drug operations.

2The accused applies for bail pending the extradition hearing and, before the hearing begins, seeks a publication ban on any identifying information of the proposed sureties, including their relationship to him. The application is based on concerns that disclosure of their identities could expose both the sureties and the accused to danger from the Wedding DTO. Each surety, through counsel, has expressed concern for their safety if their identities become public.

3The Attorney General of Canada (“Attorney General”) does not dispute that the sureties’ concerns about personal safety are well-founded. It supports a publication ban on residential addresses or other information that could reveal the whereabouts of the accused or the sureties if released. However, the Attorney General opposes a ban on the names of the sureties, their occupations, and their relationship to the accused, submitting that disclosure of this information is essential to the role of a surety and that withholding it would amount to an unnecessary infringement of the open court principle

II. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE APPLICATION

4There is a strong presumption that information disclosed in open court may be published. Court openness is protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and is essential to the proper functioning of our democracy. In Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the party seeking to limit openness bears the onus of establishing three prerequisites:

(1) Court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest; and

(2) The order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and,

(3) As a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects.

III. THE EVIDENCE

5The only evidence currently before the Court consists of the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for an arrest warrant. According to that document, the accused is alleged to be a member of the Wedding DTO and to have facilitated the movement of hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars for the organization. It is further alleged that he used his Toronto-based business, Diamond Tsar, and cryptocurrency platforms to launder the Wedding DTO’s illicit proceeds, arranged payments through bulk cash, cryptocurrency, and wire transfers, and purchased high-end luxury assets, including a $13 million vehicle, for Mr. Wedding and the DTO. The Wedding DTO is described as highly organized, well-financed, and willing to employ violence, including murder, to protect its interests

6The warrant request contains detailed information about violent acts allegedly committed by the Wedding DTO for the benefit of the criminal organization, including:

• In October 2024, members of the Wedding DTO discussed killing two of their couriers who had been arrested by U.S. law enforcement and were suspected of cooperating with authorities.
• Wedding offered $5 million (USD) for the murder of an informant he believed was providing information about the DTO to the U.S. Department of Justice. The Wedding DTO located the informant in Colombia, and on January 31, 2025, the informant was executed while seated in a restaurant in Medellín. After the killing, Wedding circulated a photograph of the informant’s body, boasting that he had ‘killed the rat’ and claiming the case against him was no longer viable. The applicant is alleged to have arranged financial compensation for a Wedding DTO member who assisted in locating the informant.
• The arrest warrant further states that members and associates of the Wedding Criminal Enterprise committed, attempted, conspired, and threatened acts of violence, including murder, to preserve, protect, promote, and expand its drug trafficking operations.
• The indictment filed in the United States District Court of Central California alleges that on or about November 20, 2023, Wedding and his associate, Andrew Clark, ordered the killing of a drug transportation driver whom they believed had stolen 300 kilograms of cocaine. That same day, members of the conspiracy broke into a rental property in Caledon, Ontario, occupied by a family of three. They killed two occupants and wounded a third, mistakenly believing they were relatives of the courier.

IV. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Applicant

7The applicant submits that the requested publication ban would serve two important public interests: (1) protecting the lives of the applicant and his sureties; and (2) affirming the Court’s commitment to ensuring the safety of all participants in the justice system.

8The applicant submits that the first public interest is established by clear evidence that he and his sureties face grave dangers if their identities are publicly revealed. There is a reasonable concern that the Wedding DTO may view the applicant as a potential cooperating witness for American prosecutors. Mr. Sokolovski faces a lengthy sentence if convicted, and the United States Department of Justice alleges hundreds of transactions and seized messages that appear to establish a strong prosecution case. If convicted, Mr. Sokolovski faces very significant prison terms. This may be perceived by members of the Wedding DTO as creating a strong motive for him to attempt to resolve his situation by cooperating in the prosecution of other members of the DTO.

9The Wedding DTO has committed murders in Ontario to further its interests, including killing family members of a courier they believed had stolen cocaine. This establishes not only a risk of murder to those directly involved in the organization’s operations, but also a risk of retribution against those closely associated with its perceived enemies.

10The applicant further submits that granting the requested publication ban is necessary to affirm the Court’s commitment to ensuring that all members of the public can participate in the justice system without fear for their personal safety. The justice system has historically taken significant steps to protect participants—most notably witnesses—because such protection is integral to the proper functioning of the courts. This concern, however, is not limited to witnesses. All participants in the justice system are entitled to the same assurance of safety and there is nothing inherent to the role of sureties which should disentitle them from the protections which are routinely extended to other participants in the justice system.

11The applicant argues that nothing short of the requested publication ban can preserve these two public interests. Disclosure of the sureties’ identities, occupations, and their relationship to the accused would inevitably make it easier to locate them and the accused in the community, with potentially tragic consequences

12On the issue of proportionality, the applicant submits that the benefits of the requested publication ban far outweigh any negative effects. Mr. Fenton argues that public interest in this case arises from the allegations themselves, not from the identity of the sureties. Nothing of consequence would be lost by granting the ban. The media would remain free to report all allegations and the reasons for judgment on the bail application. Media and other court observers will be present in the courtroom and will hear all information subject to the ban. The request is for a publication ban only, not a sealing order, which would represent a significantly greater infringement of the open court principle. There is no evidence or reason to believe that the sureties would be any less accountable or responsible if they were not publicly identified.

B. The Attorney General of Canada

13The Attorney General agrees that there are real dangers for the sureties and the applicant. In the related bail hearing of Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States v. Paradkar, 2025 ONSC 7187, the defendant did not seek a publication ban, but the parties agreed that the sureties’ addresses would be redacted from publicly available documents and not disclosed in open court. The Attorney General is prepared to follow the same process in this case.

14The Attorney General opposes the requested publication ban for three reasons:

(1) Any departure from the open court principle must be minimal and tailored to address the specific danger established by the evidence. The evidence does not show that identifying the sureties and their relationship to the applicant would increase the danger to anyone.

(2) Identifying the sureties permits public scrutiny of their conduct and helps ensure they will fulfill their significant responsibilities to the public.

(3) A person so fearful of reprisal that they are unwilling to have their name disclosed publicly would not be an adequate surety.

C. The Representatives of the Media

15In accordance with the Criminal Proceedings Rules, the applicant served notice on media organizations advising of his intention to seek a publication ban. None of the media outlets objected to the proposed ban. Several members of local media were present in court on the day the application was argued. At the conclusion of submissions from the applicant and the Attorney General, I invited any member of the media to make submissions or provide information relevant to the Court’s decision. Only one member of the media came forward, and his remarks did not address the issue.

V. ANALYSIS

A. Has the applicant established that openness would pose a serious risk to an important public interest?

16There is undoubtedly an important public interest in protecting individuals from physical harm or death. Direct evidence of a threat is not required; danger may be inferred from the circumstances, provided the inferences are grounded in objective facts: Sherman Estate, at para. 97.

17The Court must consider not only the likelihood that physical harm will occur but also the gravity of the anticipated harm. Where the feared harm is particularly serious, the applicant need not establish that it is likely to materialize. If the apprehended violence is extremely serious—as is the case with murder—the standard is met if the evidence shows that the concern is not negligible, fanciful, or speculative: Sherman Estate, at para. 98.

18It is difficult to precisely assess the degree of risk faced by the applicant and his sureties. It is unknown whether the Wedding DTO continues to have operatives in Ontario and, if so, whether they would perceive the applicant as a threat to the organization. Based on inferences drawn from the evidence provided by the Requesting State, I find it is reasonably possible that members of the Wedding DTO could view the applicant as a potential cooperating witness. If so, the evidence supports the further inference that he and those close to him would be at risk of being killed, either by members of the Wedding DTO or hired assassins. Publication of any information that could facilitate locating the applicant or his sureties in the community would significantly increase that risk. On this basis, the applicant has established that openness would pose a serious risk to the first identified public interest—namely, his own safety and that of his sureties.

19I also accept the applicant’s alternative submission that openness would present a serious risk to the important public interest of ensuring that all members of the community will feel safe when participating in the criminal justice system.

20The Canadian justice system has a strong tradition of protecting the safety of all who participate in it. While it is witnesses who most often require protection, significant efforts are made to ensure that lawyers, accused persons, jurors, and judges can participate without fear for their safety. This protection is essential to maintaining an accessible and fair justice system.

21Anonymity is a common way to ensure safety. Jurors were once named in open court, but today they are identified only by number. The case law contains many examples where publication bans have been imposed to protect the identity of individual participants in the justice system:

• In R. v. Esseghaier, 2017 ONCA 970, Watt J.A. considered it “self-evident” that the disclosure of identifiers of an undercover operative working in counter-terrorism would compromise the safety of the operative (para. 41).
• In X. v. Y., 2011 BCSC 943, the risk of physical harm was inferred on the basis that the plaintiff was a police officer who had investigated “cases involving gang violence and dangerous firearms” and wrote sentencing reports for such offenders which identified him by full name (para. 6).
• In R. v. O.S., [2022] O.J. No. 3356, the court granted a publication ban on the curriculum vitae of an expert witness to protect the witness from the potential threat posed by members of the Incel community. The court found that the failing to issue the ban would discourage other experts in the field from conducting research and testifying regarding their findings.

22The Attorney General argues that sureties must be identified to ensure accountability and public scrutiny. I do not accept that submission. There is no evidence that disclosing a surety’s identity improves their diligence or commitment. Section 517 of the Criminal Code is routinely applied in domestic criminal bail hearings, and the resulting publication ban on the identities of sureties has never been shown to impair their performance. Moreover, a surety who fails to meet their obligations will face public scrutiny during the estreatment process. In my view, there is no reason to deny sureties the same protections available to other participants in the criminal justice system where those protections are demonstrably necessary.

23The Attorney General submits that people who fear being identified should not come forward to act as sureties. I again respectfully disagree. There are cases where individuals legitimately fear participating in the justice system, and this case illustrates that reality. The justice system’s duty is to take reasonable steps to make prospective sureties feel secure, not to exclude them from acting. Sureties play a vital role in the criminal justice process. Without their willingness to act, detention centres would be overwhelmed, and the constitutional right to reasonable bail would be meaningless. We cannot allow fear to deter potential sureties.

24I find that openness in this case would create a serious risk to the public perception that safety is assured for all participants in the criminal justice system. Preserving that perception is a critical public interest.

B. The order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk

25The Attorney General argues that the evidence does not show that publishing the names of the sureties and their relationship to the accused would increase the risk to their lives. While the court may draw logical inferences from the evidence, it must not engage in speculation: see Sherman Estates, at para. 97.

26The undisputed evidence establishes that the Wedding DTO is a ruthless criminal organization that has committed murder to protect its interests and has intimidated potential enemies by killing their associates and family members. It is not speculative to conclude that any information identifying the applicant’s family members or close associates would significantly increase the risk of death to those individuals. While the precise probability of that risk cannot be assessed on the available evidence, the gravity of the potential harm is so great that even an appreciable risk is sufficient. I am satisfied that the risk in this case far exceeds that threshold.

27The Attorney General correctly notes that the requested publication ban would not prevent a member of the public from learning the sureties’ names, as they appear in the court file, which is open for inspection. While that is true, obtaining the information requires attending the courthouse, where access is subject to some scrutiny and potential identification. This offers the sureties a measure of assurance that their information is not readily available.

28I am satisfied that the requested publication ban is necessary to reduce the foreseeable risk to the sureties and the applicant to a tolerable level.

C. As a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects.

29The final criterion under the Sherman Estate test is whether the benefit of granting the order outweighs its potential negative effects. I am satisfied that it does. The evidence shows the order is necessary to reduce the risk of death or serious harm to innocent parties who face this danger only because they agreed to act as sureties. The order sought is a publication ban, not a sealing order, and applies only to the identification of sureties which is a matter of minimal public interest. No media organization has objected. The only factor weighing against the order is the strong presumption of openness. In my view, that presumption is overcome by the evidence.

30Although I find that the applicant has currently satisfied all three of the criteria identified in Sherman Estate, the relevant considerations are not fixed and may change by the conclusion of the bail hearing. I have not yet heard any evidence on the bail application and cannot determine whether it will succeed or fail. The outcome of that proceeding, and my reasons for it, may alter the balance that presently favors granting the publication ban.

31This is an unusual bail hearing. The allegations against the defendants have been widely publicized due to statements made by the requesting state. This rarely occurs in domestic criminal prosecutions. As a result, the Canadian public is aware of the serious nature of the allegations and is understandably concerned about the possible release of members of the Wedding DTO into the community. Given that level of concern, it is incumbent on the court to provide comprehensive reasons to explain the outcome of these proceedings.

32I am guided by my experience as the judge who heard the bail application of Deepak Paradkar, a co-accused with the applicant on several counts of the California indictment. The allegations against Mr. Paradkar were more serious than those facing Mr. Sokolovski, as Mr. Paradkar —a lawyer—was alleged to have counselled the murder of an informant. The Attorney General sought Mr. Paradkar’s detention on all three grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code, particularly the tertiary ground aimed at maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. All four criteria under section 515(10)(c) favored detention. Nevertheless, I found that Mr. Paradkar had met his onus and ordered his release, principally because of my confidence in his surety.

33If Mr. Paradkar had sought the publication ban requested in this case, I would almost certainly have denied it. In that matter, it was not possible to explain my reasons for granting release without identifying the surety and describing her close relationship to Mr. Paradkar. Providing those details was essential to explaining my decision and thereby maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. As I stated in my Reasons for Judgment in the Paradkar case:

I cannot say whether a reasonable person would agree with the decision to release Mr. Paradkar, but I find that it would not cause a loss of confidence in the administration of justice. A rational person, fully informed of the facts, would recognize that bail decisions can be difficult and would find reassurance in the efforts of the administration of justice to analyze and explain its conclusions.

The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States v. Paradkar, 2025 ONSC 7187 at para. 97

34I cannot presently foresee the outcome of this bail application. If the application is unsuccessful and the applicant is detained, there would be no public interest in identifying the proposed sureties. If the accused is released, I will need to consider whether disclosure of their identities is necessary to explain my decision. The evidence of the sureties may prove pivotal to the outcome—as was the case in Paradkar—which would increase the need to explain my reasoning. Conversely, if the testimony of the sureties is a lesser consideration and my decision turns on other factors that can be readily explained, disclosure may not be required which would favour continuing the publication ban.

VI. CONCLUSION

35There will be an order banning publication of all information relating to the proposed sureties at the applicant’s bail hearing including:

a. Names;

b. Relationship to the Applicant;

c. Contact information, including complete addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses;

d. Addresses of any real estate owned;

e. Date and place of birth;

f. Occupation; and

g. Employer information.

36This order will be subject to review and variation as required in my reasons for judgment on the application for judicial interim release.

Justice Peter Bawden

Released: January 12, 2026

CITATION: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States v. Sokolovski, 2026 ONSC 211