Publication ban law too broad, top Ontario court rules

The Canadian Press

January 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM EST

TORONTO — Bail hearings in cases where there's no threat of tainting a jury pool shouldn't be placed under a publication ban just because the accused asks for one, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in a decision released Monday.

“It's certainly a huge issue in terms of freedom of the press and the public's right to information,” Iris Fischer, a media lawyer who worked on the case, said of the ruling.

“Right now it's very rare that bail hearings can be reported on. Usually the public has no idea — if someone has been granted bail in a high-profile case — why or why not.”

A section of the Criminal Code stipulates that if an accused asks for a publication ban on a bail hearing it is automatically granted. The evidence heard at those hearings cannot be reported until a trial is over.

But in a 3-2 decision Monday, the Appeal Court ruled that should only be the case when there is a chance an ensuing trial might be heard before a jury.

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently fully upheld the bail hearing publication ban section of the Criminal Code, but media lawyers have sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

That issue was brought about in regards to the case of Michael White, who was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. The Ontario case came about from the so-called Toronto 18 terror suspects' bail hearings.

The Ontario court ruled that in cases involving lesser offences that would only be heard by a judge, the accused should have to argue why a publication ban on the bail hearing is warranted.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that while such publication bans are necessary to protect an accused's right to a fair trial, the section of the Criminal Code dealing with bans is unconstitutional.

The decision also means that if at any point it's decided the case is to be tried by judge alone, then the publication ban on the evidence is lifted.

The two judges who dissented would have removed the automatic aspect to publication bans even in cases where a jury trial is possible, Ms. Fischer said.


Commentary in the Globe and Mail by the Ottawa Mens Centre


Ottawa Mens, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gender Apartheid, Canada wrote: Judges have absolute power and we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, take any random group in society and most cannot resist the temptation to abuse absolute power. Our government fails us, there is no Policing of Judges, the Judicial Council is a total farce, its like complaining about crime to the Hells Angels. Ontario Family Court Judges are the worst flagrant abusers, the very worst never allow recording, in fact its a set up, no one is brave enough to ask for permission to record because bad judges don't want any record, they want to be able to dictate changes to transcripts if ordered, or simply "delay" and justice delayed is justice denied. Good judges by comparison will proudly state in court, "I have never denied any application to record a proceeding". "Those judges are the saints to the legal profession, they have nothing to fear as their reputations precede them and are well known. So it is with the Horrors of the judiciary, who make "Power orders or "Sheffield Orders" backed up at the court of appeal, very conveniently by the Court of Appeals top man hater, Madam Justice Feldman who has the worst record of decisions against men bar none. Its like the sex you have when you are not having sex, its doing indirectly what is legally wrong directly, Feldman, Power, Sheffield, are a tag team, using the process of justification, aka "male hatred" or "Male Gender Apartheid" to make draconian decisions that sever, without cause, a child's relationship with a father simply because he has spoken publically about Judicial Corruption by the underbelly, the ethically challenged whose PUBLIC RECORD (see CanLii or the Research by Peter Roscoe) shows a hatred towards those who expose their abuses. Publicity Bans, are used "delay" embarrassing information. to "delay" often means keep it hushed up till heat blows over, then it will not be news worthy. Its time for change , see the research by Peter Roscoe at roscoe Ottawa Mens, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gender Apartheid, Canada) wrote: Opensource, did you really think or reason before you made that post? At the end of the day, it will be a judge who decides if a publication ban is necessary. They have absolute POWER, and many simply cannot be trusted to bow to political pressure.
Publication bans can simply be a judge omitting to report a decision, Frequently you will NOT find them on CANLii.
Take for example search warrants, often issued on nothing more than a hunch, designed to terrorize and silence opposition, the computer's and records seized in nothing other than intimidation. The charges are dropped, no malice can be proved, and thank our government for the incredibly high hurdle to jump to prove a malicious prosecution. Our judiciary also take advantage of their power, they have anyone who they don't like arrested, nudge nudge wink wink to the local police and crown, Judge so and so doesn't like him so go get him boys. And, of they go. One Judge, Justice RICHARD LAJOIE, had a father arrested on a charge of Criminal Defamation, for calling him corrupt and an insult to justice, conveniently held in jail for nearly a week, "to teach him a lesson" before getting bail but not after the prisoners were told that "he was a danger to children", the sort of allegation that gets you killed in jail. Other judges carry out stunts nearly as bad. Take Denis Power of Ottawa, issued a restraining order because he did not like another judge , issuing criminal charges against the man's former wife, you see, that judge had heard 3 previous charges from the ex-wife's associates, and after hearing all that, issued 5 against the ex wife... Another judge had ordered an expedited trial of custody so, Denis Power hit him with $6,000 in costs that could not be paid to set it up for an order for security for costs. "Publication ban" Denis Power never reported his 34 page decision taken from the transcripts that was just "dumping on the father". Check Roscoe's files at Ottawa Mens, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gender Apartheid, Canada wrote: Madam Justice Karen Feldman has scant regard for the rights of an accused if the accused just happens to be male and if the charge was laid by a vindictive woman in family court.
Madam Justice Karen Feldman does not care if her lack of empathy will mean that a father will end up in jail on quadruple hearsay without the right of a trial. A publication ban means little. Feldman is just as likely to bury the information with diversionary irrelevant facts simply to cover her omission of the real substantive facts. Classic omissions are proof of fraud and fabrication of evidence by a lawyer, a feminist lawyer. She allows material to be filed and read by her that have not even been served upon the other side, (because it was fabricated).

Madam Justice Karen Feldman has the distinction of having made more Anti-Male decisions than any other judge in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Madam Justice Karen Feldman engages in "the process of justification" that is, she will do indirectly what she cannot do directly, without of course making an obvious error in law.

To quote Peter Roscoe who has done a great deal of work detailing the bias against men by judges.

"It can be concluded that on a family issue a woman has a 73.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a 22.8 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Feldman on it. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.2 % in favour of men, 62.3 % in favour of females, and divided 24.5 % of the time."



Ottawa Mens, from Ottawa Capital of Male Gender Apartheid, Canada) wrote: Roscoe's research is also flawed, its based on CanLii reported decisions, and you WILL NOT FIND MANY OF THE DECISIONS OF Madam Justice Karen Feldman when she was hearing motions as "A SINGLE JUDGE", Roscoe, despite his incredible research did not have access to that information, and, neither do a lot of other people, many of those single judge decisions "are buried", Justice Feldman will even order, wait for it, security for costs to prevent an appeal of vexatious litigant order or order security for costs to prevent an appeal of an order for security for costs! Thats not all, she will order security for costs on an appeal that if not heard will terminate a child's access with his or her father permanently.
In the opinion of many lawyers, not to mention destroyed fathers, who are unable to see their children, she is probably the worst feminist judge in the Court of Appeal of Ontario.