Motion Brief - Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry

- 32 -
Commissioner consists of general and speculative assertions of possible negative
outcomes, some of which the Applicants say have already occurred.
At best the
Applicants have proved that media coverage of the death of a child and a subsequent
inquiry, inquest or investigation is one of many factors that has been connected with
some negative outcomes in the past. This is not the sort of very serious risk that must
be established to justify interfering with Charter rights.
R. v. Mentuck, supra, para 39 - Tab 5, Media Group Authorities
Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario, supra, para 10 - Tab 16,
Media Group Authorities
92. The evidence before the Commissioner further indicates many alternative ways
to address the concerns identified by the Applicants that do not require without the
interference with Charter rights of the public.
The existence of these alternatives
precludes a publication ban under the Dagenais/Mentuck test.
VII. Have the Applicants met the Second Branch of the
Dagenais/Mentuck test - Proportionality?
A. Introduction
93. To justify a publication ban, the Applicant must demonstrate that the benefit of
the reduction in risk outweighs the negative effects the ban will have on the rights and
interests of the public, including the effects on the right to free expression and the
efficacy of the administration of justice.
R. v. Mentuck, supra, para 32 - Tab 5, Media Group Authorities