Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 68 adjudication as contemplated in subsection 11(d) of the Charter. Speaking for the majority, Lamer C.J.C. said: The common law rule governing publication bans has always been traditionally understood as requiring those seeking a ban to demonstrate that there is a real and substantial risk of interference with the right to a fair trial. … [P]ublication bans are not available as protections against remote and speculative dangers.263 In separate reasons, McLachlin J. said: What must be guarded against is the facile assumption that if there is any risk of prejudice to a fair trial, however speculative, the ban should be ordered.264 Where a local authority intends to assert that a jury may be influenced by release of the record or information, it should consider R. v. Corbett, (1988), wherein Justice Dickson said: …the Court should not be heard to call into question the capacity of juries to do the job assigned to them. The ramifications of any such statement would be enormous… (i)t is logically incoherent to hold that juries are incapable of following the explicit instructions of a judge.265 When there is a review by the IPC, the local authority is invited to provide a submission (arguments). The local authority should describe how and why disclosure of the information in question could deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or hearing. A local authority cannot rely on subsection 14(1)(g) of LA FOIP for a record that: 263 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC) at pp. 875 and 880, Also cited and relied on in Ontario IPC Order P-948 at p. 5. It is important to note that Ontario’s FOIP Act uses “could reasonably be expected to” for its equivalent provision (subsection 14(1)(f)). That threshold is higher than Saskatchewan’s subsection 15(1)(g) of FOIP. 264 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC) at p. 950. Also cited and relied on in ON IPC Order P-948 at p. 5. It is important to note that Ontario’s FOIP Act uses “could reasonably be expected to” for its equivalent provision (subsection 14(1)(f)). That threshold is higher than Saskatchewan’s subsection 15(1)(g) of FOIP. 265 R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 SCR 670, 1988 CanLII 80 (SCC) at p. 693. Similar statements were made in Ex parte Telegraph Plc., [1993] 2 All E.R. 971 (C.A.) at p. 978 and Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC) at p. 322 and R. V. MacDonnell, 1996 CanLII 5560 (NA CA) at p. 3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==