October 31, 2018
R v MGM 2018 ABPC 256

The youth was seeking two orders from the court; the first order was for a publication ban on the Young Person’s judicial interim release hearing, pursuant to s. 517 of the CC. The second was for the exclusion of the public and non-accredited media from the Young Person’s judicial interim release hearing.

Justice Lipton considered the evidence presented by the Young Person and determined that it didn’t meet the threshold.

In MGM’s affidavit and Charter Notice in support of his applications, the Young Person asserted that his request to exclude all but accredited members of the media from his judicial interim release hearing was premised on the basis that his right to a fair trial would be denied due to intimidation of witnesses, tainting of their evidence, and release of personal information about him.

The Young Person’s statutory applications were denied on the basis that he did not put forward sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a ban was necessary. In my opinion, MGM’s concerns were mostly speculative in nature, despite limited evidence of the existence of a Facebook site and an anonymous letter received in the mail.