Protections under the Youth Criminal Justice Act take precedence over open court principles: court
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that media companies cannot have full, unredacted access to youth court records in a murder case, emphasizing that privacy protections under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) take precedence over open court principles.
In R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2024 ONCA 765, several media organizations requested full access to court records involving eight teenagers accused of second-degree murder. The teenagers were accused of swarming and fatally stabbing a man in Toronto in December 2022. The Youth Court judge granted the media limited access to the documents, redacting identifying details of the young accused individuals. The media’s request for full access was based on the open court principle established in previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions. However, the court found these principles do not override the statutory privacy protections provided by the YCJA.
The YCJA mandates that any records relating to young persons are presumptively restricted to protect their privacy and promote rehabilitation. Under s. 119(1)(s) of the act, access can only be granted if it serves the “proper administration of justice,” which must be balanced against the youth's privacy rights. The media argued that they should have a presumptive right to access youth records given their role in reporting on judicial proceedings, but the court rejected this claim.
The Youth Court judge’s decision, upheld by the Superior Court and now the Court of Appeal, emphasized that youth privacy protections are vital to avoid stigmatization and enhance rehabilitation, which aligns with international conventions and the principles underlying the YCJA. The Youth Court judge allowed partial access to documents like criminal information and court dates but excluded unredacted details that could identify the young accused.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the requirement for media to apply formally for record access, rejecting arguments that such applications impose unnecessary burdens. It concluded that judicial oversight is necessary to assess competing interests and prevent the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information in the digital age.
