Abstract
This paper reviews the history and justification for the open courts principle in Canada, including its recognition as a constitutional principle encompassed by freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter. The strong recognition of the principle in Dagenais and Mentuck, where a high test was set for obtaining discretionary orders limiting the public’s right to know, is contrasted with the recent apparent retreat from those principles in the context of statutory bans on bail hearings. The paper criticizes the deference to statutory bans as inconsistent with the strong presumption against discretionary bans where courts must balance competing interests.
Citation Information
Schabas, Paul.
"What Happens at a Bail Hearing Anyway?: The Supreme Court's Troubling Retreat from the Openness Principle in Toronto Star v. Canada."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
54.
(2011).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1214
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol54/iss1/8
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.