A.B. v. C.D.

A.B. v. C.D.

To ensure effective compliance with the mandatory s.486.4(2) Criminal Code publication ban protecting the complainant, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and applied a modified Dagenais/Mentuck necessity and proportionality analysis, concluding that publication of the individual defendant's name, the plaintiff's former high school, and the school board would tend to identify the plaintiff; the salutary effects of extending anonymity outweighed the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and open courts, so the September 27, 2010 order was varied to suppress those identifiers.

Citation
2010 BCSC 1530
Parties
Plaintiff: A.B.; Defendant: C.D.; Defendant: Board of School Trustees of District E.F.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Sexual Exploitation/assault / Trial With Interlocutory Applications for Publication Bans
Outcome
Court varied the interim order to clarify and extend the publication ban: the style of cause was amended to initials for the parties and publication of information identifying the plaintiff, the individual defendant, the plaintiff's former high school, and the institutional defendant was prohibited.
Legal Topics
Section 486.4(2) Criminal Code, Open Court Principle, Anonymity of Sexual Offence Complainants, Dagenais/mentuck Proportionality Test, Vicarious Liability
Source Language
English
Publication Bans Privacy Law Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Civil Damages/tort Section 486.4(2) Criminal Code Open Court Principle Anonymity of Sexual Offence Complainants +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Plaintiff

C.D.

Defendant

Board of School Trustees of District E.F.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Sexual Exploitation/assault / Trial With Interlocutory Applications for Publication Bans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a publication ban of the former teacher's name and identifying information is required to comply with the existing s.486.4(2) Criminal Code ban protecting the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether a publication ban for the former teacher is required to avoid harm to his minor child
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's former high school's name must be banned to protect the plaintiff's anonymity

Ratio Decidendi

To ensure effective compliance with the mandatory s.486.4(2) Criminal Code publication ban protecting the complainant, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and applied a modified Dagenais/Mentuck necessity and proportionality analysis, concluding that publication of the individual defendant's name, the plaintiff's former high school, and the school board would tend to identify the plaintiff; the salutary effects of extending anonymity outweighed the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and open courts, so the September 27, 2010 order was varied to suppress those identifiers.

Court Disposition

Court varied the interim order to clarify and extend the publication ban: the style of cause was amended to initials for the parties and publication of information identifying the plaintiff, the individual defendant, the plaintiff's former high school, and the institutional defendant was prohibited.

Orders

  • Style of cause amended to refer to the plaintiff as A.B., the individual defendant as C.D., and the other defendant as Board of School Trustees of District E.F.
  • No publication of any information which would tend to identify the plaintiff, including the name of the individual defendant or information which would tend to identify him, the name of the plaintiff's former high school, and the name of the institutional defendant or information which would tend to identify it.