T. Park

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his defamation action for delay.

The plaintiff attributed the delay to prioritizing criminal proceedings (where he was ultimately acquitted), his father's illness, and other litigation.

The court applied a contextual approach, balancing the preference for merits-based decisions with the promotion of timely resolution and the importance of litigation finality.

While the plaintiff's explanation for delay and missing the deadline was deemed insufficient, the court found no significant prejudice to the defendant, noting the case's reliance on documents and the defendant's own inaction.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and a new timetable was ordered.

Costs of $5,000 were fixed against the plaintiff, payable to the defendant in the cause.

The plaintiff, Core Insight Strategies Inc., brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add several parties, including Dan Baril as a plaintiff and Erin Kelly, Kenton White, and Ken Rubin as defendants.

Ken Rubin opposed his addition, arguing that the proposed claims of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations, based on his freedom of information requests, were unmeritorious and constituted a "gag proceeding" under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Master granted the motion to add the other parties but dismissed the motion to add Ken Rubin, finding that his FOI requests could not be construed as specific allegations of wrongdoing and that allowing such claims would unduly prejudice the exercise of freedom of information rights and expression.

Media outlets sought access to photographic exhibits from a 2003 guilty plea proceeding involving assault charges, to be used in reporting on the defendant's current murder charges.

The court balanced the open court principle and freedom of expression against fair trial rights and privacy concerns.

The court granted limited access to photographs of the weapon only, while denying access to photographs of the victim's injuries due to their inflammatory nature, the risk to jury impartiality, and the victim's privacy rights.

Media outlets applied for access to exhibits filed in 2003 proceedings where Bruce McArthur pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The exhibits included a psychological report and pre-sentence report.

McArthur, facing murder charges, opposed release arguing it would prejudice his fair trial rights.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and granted access to the reports with redactions of family members' names and residential information, finding the open court principle presumptively favoured disclosure and McArthur failed to establish a serious risk to fair trial rights.

Media organizations applied for access to previously sealed informations to obtain (ITOs) relating to a production order and search warrant issued during a criminal investigation.

The accused sought continuation of a publication ban, arguing that publication of intercepted communications referenced in the ITOs would compromise his right to a fair trial on an extortion charge.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court held that the accused failed to demonstrate a real and serious risk to trial fairness, given existing publicity, the passage of time before trial, jury instructions, and the challenge for cause process.

A third party mentioned in the ITOs argued that publication would damage his reputation, but the court held that third parties generally lack standing to seek publication bans absent exceptional circumstances.

The court concluded that the open court principle prevailed and lifted the remaining publication bans.

Media organizations applied for access to and the ability to publish the contents of an Information to Obtain supporting a search warrant in a major police investigation.

The Provincial Crown and an accused sought a publication ban on references to non-consensual intercepted private communications, arguing protection of the wiretap regime and fair trial rights.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court held that generalized concerns about the wiretap regime and speculative risks to a future jury trial were insufficient to justify restricting openness.

The court emphasized the strong presumption of open courts and the public interest in scrutiny of judicial authorizations and police investigations.

Balancing the competing interests, the court concluded that the salutary effects of a publication ban did not outweigh the significant deleterious effects on freedom of expression and public accountability.