Supreme Court Upholds Contested Pre-Trial Publication Ban, Sparking Debate on Press Freedom

Ontario government's restrictions on election spending by third parties face constitutional challenge.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided to uphold interpretations of the Criminal Code that enforce automatic publication bans for matters taking place before a jury is constituted. The unanimous decision released on Friday has garnered mixed reactions, with media outlets and civil liberty advocates arguing it could stifle freedom of the press.

The comprehensive 47-page ruling was delivered by seven of the eight Supreme Court judges. It reviewed two distinct jury-trial cases, one of which was the widely-covered trial of Aydin Coban, a Dutch national charged in British Columbia. Coban was ultimately sentenced to 13 years in prison for his role in the tragic death of Amanda Todd, a 15-year-old from Port Coquitlam, who tragically took her own life in 2012 after being exploited online.

 Carol Todd, left, became an anti-bullying advocate after her daughter Amanda died by suicide in 2012. (TELUS Originals)

Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for the unanimous panel, emphasized the intent of the provisions: “Parliament’s intent to protect the fundamental interest of the accused in being tried by jurors who are not exposed to, and biased by, the content of and rulings on matters heard in their absence is immediately apparent from the wording of the provisions.”

The core issue debated was the applicability of two sections of the Criminal Code: 648 (1), which enforces blanket publication bans for information during jury trials even if the jury is not present, and 645 (5), giving judges jurisdiction over any such matters.

Wagner further clarified the objective, stating, “Parliament aimed to shield the jury from information about any portion of the trial from which it was absent… this objective is relevant with respect to both the existent jury and the jury yet to be empanelled.”

The ruling has received significant attention from media outlets, as it holds implications for future cases concerning section 648 (1) of the Criminal Code. Media giants including CBC News, Global News, Postmedia, and the Toronto Star, among others, argued that such bans limit press freedom, citing the 15-month period where they couldn’t report details of pre-trial court proceedings.

Picture of Canada supreme court from GETTY IMAGES

The second case under this ruling spotlighted a pre-trial publication ban in Quebec concerning Frédérick Silva, a former mafia hitman. He faced charges of four counts of murder and one of attempted murder between 2017 and 2018 and was subsequently convicted on four counts in 2022.

Lawyers challenging the ban argued the wording of section 648 (1) was ambiguous, but Wagner countered, stating that when viewed in context with other sections of the Criminal Code, the meaning becomes clear. He affirmed, “The plain meaning of the text is not in itself determinative and must be tested against the other indicators of legislative meaning — context, purpose and relevant legal norms.”

Amid this backdrop, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association argued that such blanket publication bans might negatively impact trial fairness by preventing public scrutiny of the criminal process.

In recent years, there have been challenges to the interpretation of section 648 (1), including cases of significant public interest. Wagner provided guidance for judges in the recent ruling, advising them to “announce that they are exercising their jurisdiction” to ensure clarity regarding what falls under the publication ban.

This decision is expected to set a precedent for future court proceedings, emphasizing the balance between freedom of the press and the rights of the accused.