Ontario considers livestreaming bail hearings
Context:
Ontario Premier Doug Ford stated that his government was exploring the idea of live-streaming bail hearings to the public and was hoping that the federal government would “follow through with their promise to reform Canada’s broken bail system and keep repeat offenders behind bars.”
Members of the media may directly contact the following experts:
Jennifer Quaid (English and French)
Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Civil Law Section
Professor Quaid can discuss the reforms in the context of criminal law and sentencing.
“It’s unclear what the intention of the government is in considering live-streaming bail hearings. There is no articulation of a public interest rationale for this change aside from vague handwringing about confidence in the bail system - which, based on the Premier’s comments, have more to do with the law that applies in bail cases rather than whether the public can livestream the hearings. Moreover, the general principle is that bail hearings are open to the public (the « open court principle »), however, there are circumstances when a publication ban applies (either because of the type of case - youth justice, for e.g. - or because the court orders a ban to protect the integrity of a future trial). A law allowing live streaming would not change the rules governing when a publication ban can be put in place, unless there is more to the proposal than has been reported. And changing those rules would risk legal challenges.”
Joao Velloso (English and French)
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law Section
Professor Velloso's research focuses on penal policies and use of mixed legal regimes in the governance of deviance and security.
“To a certain extent this is already the case, notably after Covid-19; it’s everywhere in their website. An observer or member of the public can ask for the link and attend the hearings… Most of today’s docket at Ottawa, Ontario Court Justice on criminal matters today are online.”
“While the open court principle is a fundamental tenet of our legal system, it should not be invoked to justify measures for the purpose of intimidating or pressuring judges.”