Loveridge v. HMTQ
- Citation
- 2004 BCSC 1055
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 5 August 2004
- Posture
- Civil Damages for Sexual Assault / Ruling on Publication Ban / Anonymity Motion
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 5 August 2004
- Posture
- Civil Damages for Sexual Assault / Ruling on Publication Ban / Anonymity Motion
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that a s.486(3) publication ban ordered in criminal proceedings does not extend to separate civil proceedings and that the plaintiff failed to establish the independent necessity required to litigate anonymously in the civil action; accordingly the court declined to order a publication ban or anonymity in the civil proceedings while leaving the criminal s.486(3) order intact.
Court disposition
Court declined to extend criminal publication ban to the civil proceedings and declined to permit the plaintiff to litigate anonymously; no publication ban ordered in the civil action.
Orders
- A publication ban made in criminal proceedings does not extend to civil proceedings based on the same criminal acts.
- Declined to make an order permitting the plaintiff to litigate anonymously in the civil proceedings.
- There will be no publication ban in these civil proceedings.
- Reasons to follow.
02
Material facts
Parties
Robert Brent Loveridge
Plaintiff Counsel: Megan EllisHer Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia
Defendant Counsel: Keith L. JohnstonAmounts and remedies
- Damages Awarded: 0
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Damages for Sexual Assault / Ruling on Publication Ban / Anonymity Motion
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Does a publication ban ordered in criminal proceedings extend to related civil proceedings?
- 02
Should the plaintiff be permitted to litigate anonymously in the civil action?
- 03
What is the effect of s.486(3) Criminal Code orders on civil proceedings?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff sought a publication ban and to litigate anonymously in the civil action, relying on the existence of a s.486(3) Criminal Code order that prohibited publication of his identity in the related criminal proceedings.
- Respondent
- Defendant opposed extension of the criminal publication ban to the civil proceedings and opposed anonymity, asserting that a s.486(3) order in criminal proceedings does not automatically bind civil proceedings and that anonymity requires separate justification.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
This Court's Ruling in Loveridge v. HMTQ (2004 BCSC 1055)
A publication ban made in criminal proceedings does not automatically extend to civil proceedings based on the same acts.
- 02
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.486(3)
Section 486(3) of the Criminal Code permits a court to prohibit publication of the identity of a complainant in criminal proceedings.
- 03
This Court's Ruling in Loveridge v. HMTQ (2004 BCSC 1055)
Granting anonymity or publication bans in civil proceedings is discretionary and requires independent justification in the civil forum.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that a s.486(3) publication ban ordered in criminal proceedings does not extend to separate civil proceedings and that the plaintiff failed to establish the independent necessity required to litigate anonymously in the civil action; accordingly the court declined to order a publication ban or anonymity in the civil proceedings while leaving the criminal s.486(3) order intact.
Obiter and limits
- The appeal that had resulted in a Court of Appeal publication ban was abandoned by the plaintiff, removing any such ban with respect to him.
- The Reasons noted that a separate publication ban referred to in other paragraphs appeared to remain in force and that the plaintiff's name had been substituted with the letter "A" in some parts of the record.
Court disposition
Court declined to extend criminal publication ban to the civil proceedings and declined to permit the plaintiff to litigate anonymously; no publication ban ordered in the civil action.
- A publication ban made in criminal proceedings does not extend to civil proceedings based on the same criminal acts.
- Declined to make an order permitting the plaintiff to litigate anonymously in the civil proceedings.
- There will be no publication ban in these civil proceedings.
- Reasons to follow.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 5 August 2004
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 5 August 2004
2004 BCSC 1055internet3 Loveridge v. HMTQ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Loveridge v. HMTQ , 2004 BCSC 1055 Date: 20040805 Docket: S012573 Registry: Vancouver Between: Robert Brent Loveridge Plaintiff And: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia Defendant Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fraser
RULING Counsel for the Plaintiff Megan Ellis Counsel for Her Majesty The Queen Keith L. Johnston The appeal in which the publication ban was ordered by the Court of Appeal, referred to in paragraph 8 of these Reasons, has been abandoned by Mr. Loveridge. Therefore, there is no publication ban with reference to Mr. Loveridge. The publication ban referred to in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the Reasons and in footnote 27 would appear to be in force. The letter "A" has been substituted for the name of the plaintiff. [1] The plaintiff, Robert Brent Loveridge, seeks damages for sexual assault committed by Roderic David MacDougall, an employee of the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia. Liability has been admitted. [2] The same assaults were the subject of criminal charges against Mr. MacDougall. Ms. Ellis, counsel for Mr. Loveridge, has informed me that in the criminal proceedings, this Court made an order under s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code, directing that the identity of Mr. Loveridge, who was of course a complainant in those proceedings, not be published in any document or broadcast in any way. [3] Ms. Ellis seeks a similar publication ban for these civil proceedings. [4] My Ruling is as follows: (1) A publication ban made in criminal proceedings does not extend to civil proceedings based on the same criminal acts in which the complainant is
the plaintiff; (2) Apart from the effect of a s. 486(3) order, I decline to make an order permitting Mr. Loveridge to litigate anonymously in these proceedings. [5] There will be no publication ban. [6] Reasons will follow. "G.P. Fraser, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice G.P. Fraser April 5, 2006 - Revised Judgment The appeal in which the publication ban was ordered by the Court of Appeal, referred to in paragraph 8 of these Reasons, has been abandoned by Mr. Loveridge. Therefore, there is no publication ban with reference to Mr. Loveridge. The publication ban referred to in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the Reasons and in footnote 27 would appear to be in force. The letter "A" has been substituted for the name of the plaintiff.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.