3 total
Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over publication bans after final judgment on the merits.
The appellant media organization sought to set aside an indefinite publication ban ordered by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in connection with a sealed affidavit filed in criminal proceedings involving an alleged miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal declined to hear the motion, holding that its jurisdiction was exhausted after it entered its formal judgment on the merits.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over their court records — including the power to vary or set aside publication bans and sealing orders — even after entering formal judgment on the merits, as this authority exists independently of the doctrine of functus officio.
The majority allowed the appeal from the 2019 Jurisdiction Judgment and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to decide the motion on its merits.
The appeal from the 2018 Publication Ban Judgment was adjourned sine die pending that determination.
Abella J. dissented, concluding that the appellant's undue delay in bringing its motion was determinative and both appeals should be dismissed.
The court ordered the use of initials and a warning in its written decision to respect underlying publication bans.
The court addressed submissions regarding the anonymization of its decision and the inclusion of a warning, in light of existing publication bans from underlying criminal and family court proceedings.
The Crown sought to protect victim identities through initialization and a substantial warning.
Post Media agreed to initials, while CBC opposed anonymization, citing the open court principle and lack of evidence for harm.
The court ultimately decided to initialize the principal parties in its decision and attach a modified warning to comply with publication bans while upholding the open court principle.
Affiants in a civil contempt application must fulfill undertakings to inquire about authors' knowledge of publication bans.
The Crown brought a motion to compel undertakings from "paper trail" affiants of the respondent media corporations during cross-examinations related to an upcoming civil contempt application.
The respondents argued that cross-examinations are narrower than discoveries, affiants are fact witnesses, and the requested inquiries were irrelevant or potentially incriminating.
The court found the questions regarding the authors' knowledge of publication bans and the CBC's system for tracking such bans to be relevant.
It ordered the affiants to make the requested inquiries, noting that the information appeared readily available and not unduly onerous to obtain.
