"If the ban is not mandatory, then the accused's right to reasonable bail and, at the same time, the accused's liberty interest may be undermined," Madam Justice Kathryn Feldman said, writing on behalf of Mr. Justice John Laskin and Madam Justice Janet Simmons.

The majority rejected the idea of allowing judges to decide on a case-by-case basis after hearing arguments from media lawyers, the accused and the Crown. They said that the process would be too time-consuming and costly.

However, Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg and Mr. Justice Russell Juriansz countered that a blanket ban "cuts off meaningful debate about a fundamental aspect of criminal justice - the bail system - at the very time the debate may be the most important. ..."

They said that, in the absence of information elucidating why a judge granted bail to a defendant, the public might unfairly savage the decision.

"Freedom of the press encompasses not just the freedom to decide what to report, but also the timing of the reporting," the minority judges added. "If, by the time the trial is finished, what transpired at the bail hearing is no longer deemed newsworthy, the Canadian public as consumers of the news are the poorer for it."

Yesterday's split decision set up a near-certain showdown in the Supreme Court of Canada.

"This is a positive step towards openness," said Paul Schabas, a lawyer for CTVglobemedia Inc., the parent company of The Globe and Mail; the Toronto Star; the CBC and The Associated Press. "Bail hearings are one of the most important steps in the criminal process."

While the majority rewrote the law in a narrow manner, Mr. Schabas said, the ruling nonetheless allows evidence from future young-offender bail hearings to be published, since these offences are not heard by juries.

In addition, he said, bail hearings for minor "summary offences" - such as causing a disturbance or communicating for the purposes of prostitution - will be held without a publication ban.

In the Brampton terrorism case, the fact that a lawyer repeated bail evidence outside the courtroom allowed the press to publish allegations that the accused had attended terrorism camps, had links to al-Qaeda and intended to blow up various public buildings.

Source

Re "Secrecy of bail hearings reduced by high court" - Wonder why the Globe did not want commentary on this article? Perhaps they did not want to earn some brownie points at the O.C.A.
 

Well here it is.
O.C.A Judges treat the public like mushrooms
The Judges of the O.C.A. operate their own insidious hypocritical Publication Bans that bring the administration of the O.C.A. into ill-repute. Their most embarrassing draconian “flagrant abuse of judicial discretion” occurs in decisions on motions frequently are "are not reported". That is, the Publication Ban by Judicial deliberate omission. Family law decisions on motions or appeals have little to do with the substantive arguments made or the legal issues involved and are decided by political correctness, according to feminist doctrine. A male has a chance in hell while a female is guaranteed success most of the time. The public record shows that Madam Justice Feldman has the highest anti-male rate of decisions than another judge on the O.C.A. Decisions at the O.C.A. are "carefully crafted", that is, if a male has any success, he will have COSTS against him, that’s right against him. That’s the unofficial Publication Ban by the Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal. see the roscoe research at www.OttawaMensCentre.com

Source

Commentary posted in the Globe

Our government should be more concerned removing censorship by the Judiciary. Even the Globe and Mail declined to allow comments on its recent headline, "Secrecy of bail hearings reduced by high court" - You see, perhaps the Judiciary have been whispering about what might happen next time the Globe asks the court for a favour.
Judicial Intimidation is frightening, its used by the very worst of the worst whose ethics slide right into the same score as the worst criminals. It can be called harassment, obstruction of justice.

The black sheep of the judiciary are well known, they leave a trail of destruction and offensive injustice that has almost no boundaries.

Notice the Ontario Court of Appeal appeared to make all the right music in their recent decision on publication bans?

The reality is, they are treating the public like mushrooms
The Judges of the O.C.A. operate their own insidious hypocritical Publication Bans that bring the administration of the O.C.A. into ill-repute. Their most embarrassing draconian “flagrant abuse of judicial discretion” occurs in decisions on motions frequently are "are not reported". That is, the Publication Ban by Judicial deliberate omission. Family law decisions on motions or appeals have little to do with the substantive arguments made or the legal issues involved and are decided by political correctness, according to feminist doctrine. A male has a chance in hell while a female is guaranteed success most of the time. The public record shows that Madam Justice Feldman has the highest anti-male rate of decisions than another judge on the O.C.A. Decisions at the O.C.A. are "carefully crafted", that is, if a male has any success, he will have COSTS against him, that’s right against him. That’s the unofficial Publication Ban by the Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal. see the roscoe research at www.OttawaMensCentre.com