A court appearance was scheduled for Woodstock, Ont., on Friday, but we can’t tell you anything about it.
That’s because an Ontario court judge has issued a temporary, but broad, publication ban in the high-profile case involving the 2009 killing of eight-year-old Victoria (Tori) Stafford.
Because of the ban, all we can say is that Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear Friday in the Superior Court of Justice in Woodstock. We are prohibited from providing any more information until there is a further order of the court.
Ms. McClintic, along with Michael Rafferty, was charged last year with the kidnapping and first-degree murder of Tori, in a shocking case that galvanized the country.
Media organizations sought to oppose the ban, but they were unable to do so in any substantive way.
Publication bans are often applied in court cases – they are routinely applied to pre-trial and bail hearings to preserve the right to a fair trial, and they are often used to shield witnesses in cases involving sex crimes. They are also used frequently to protect young offenders. These limited bans are completely justified.
But a more sweeping ban, such as the one issued by Mr. Justice Dougald McDermid in Woodstock without first hearing those who oppose it, is a danger to the rights of Canadians.
In a ruling on a key case in 1994, then chief justice Antonio Lamar of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote that “freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is now recognized as a paramount value in Canadian society.” His guidelines made it clear that no ban should be ordered unless all reasonable alternatives are first explored.
The right to free expression is equal to the right to a fair trial, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Judge Lamer wrote. That balance cannot be ignored.
At the same time, the practical reality is that in the Internet age, trying to stop the dissemination of information revealed in open court is impractical. Indeed, placing limits on traditional, responsible media may be counterproductive, as the only information available to the public will be incomplete and rife with speculation and rumour.
The extent of this ban is absurd and should be reconsidered.
