R. v. Mentuck (C.G.) (2001), 277 N.R. 160 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. NO.032
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Clayton George Mentuck (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Brandon Sun and the Canadian Newspaper Association (CNA) (intervenors)
(27738; 2001 SCC 76)
Indexed As: R. v. Mentuck (C.G.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
November 15, 2001.
Summary:
Mentuck was charged with second degree murder. The Crown applied for an order banning the publication of the names and identities of undercover police officers, their conversations during the investigation and specific undercover operation scenarios used in the investigation.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, in a decision reported at 143 Man.R.(2d) 275, banned the publication of the names and identities of the undercover police officers and any evidence that would identify them for the period of one year. The court declined to ban publication of the undercover operation scenarios used in investigating Mentuck. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Courts – Topic 3033
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – What constitutes “final judgment … of the highest court of final resort” – Mentuck was charged with second degree murder – The Crown applied for a publication ban to protect the identities of undercover police officers and the operational methods they used in investigating the accused – The trial judge ordered a one-year ban on the identities and refused a ban as to the operational methods – The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction under s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act to hear an appeal – No route of appeal was open to the parties, therefore, the trial judge’s order was a final order of the highest court of final resort – The order dealt with issues ancillary to the guilt or innocence of the accused and the appeal was not expressly barred by the Criminal Code or the Supreme Court Act – See paragraphs 13 to 21.
Criminal Law – Topic 4492
Procedure – Trial – Restrictions on publications affecting fairness of trial – Mentuck was charged with second degree murder – The Crown applied for a publication ban to protect the identities of undercover police officers and the operational methods they used in investigating the accused – The motions judge granted a one-year ban as to the identities, because the police officers continued to be involved in covert operations and identification risked their safety – The court declined to ban publication of the operational methods, because protection of police methods did not outweigh freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the ban as to the identities, where it was properly issued and of the appropriate scope – The court affirmed the refusal of the ban relating to the operational methods, where the deleterious effects of the proposed ban on the right of the press to freedom of expression and the accused’s right to a public trial substantially outweighed the benefits to the administration of justice – See paragraphs 22 to 60.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. O.N.E. (2001), 279 N.R. 187; 160 B.C.A.C. 161; 261 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Adams (J.R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707; 190 N.R. 161; 178 A.R. 161; 110 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 54, refd to. [para. 14].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (1992), 59 O.A.C. 310; 12 O.R.(3d) 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].
Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 3; 201 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 44].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 51].
Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 51].
Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 52].
Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 52].
Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 52].
Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(b), sect. 11(d) [para. 8].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 676(1) [para. 8].
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 40(1), sect. 40(3) [para. 8].
Counsel:
Heather Leonoff, Q.C., and Darrin R. Davis, for the appellant;
Timothy J. Killeen and Wendy A. Stewart, for the respondent;
Cheryl J. Tobias and Malcolm G. Palmer, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Christopher Webb, by written submissions only, for the Attorney General of Ontario;
John M. Gordon, for the Attorney General of British Columbia;
Johnathan B. Kroft and Brent C. Ross, for the interveners, Winnipeg Free Press and Brandon Sun;
Paul B. Schabas and Tony S.K. Wong, for the intervener, Canadian Newspaper Association.
Solicitors of Record:
The Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
Killeen Chapman Garreck, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;
The Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;
The Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;
The Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;
Aikins, MacAuley & Thorvaldson, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the interveners, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Brandon Sun;
Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Newspaper Association.
This appeal was heard on June 18, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On November 15, 2001, Iacobucci, J., delivered the following the decision of the court in both official languages.
