Canada Judgment

Court of Appeal for Ontario

R. v. Etherden

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because a s.517 non-publication order lawfully prevents publication of evidence, information and reasons from the bail hearing, the Court of Appeal will withhold publication of its decision while that order remains in effect and will permit access consistent with the ban (registry inspection), posting the decision publicly only once the order ceases to be in force.

Court disposition

Publication of the Court of Appeal decision is withheld pursuant to the s.517 non-publication order; interim access at the Registry permitted; public posting deferred until the order lapses.

Orders

  • Decision not to be published, broadcast or transmitted while the s.517 non-publication order remains in effect.
  • The decision will be posted on the Court of Appeal for Ontario website once the non-publication order ceases to be in effect.
  • A copy of the full decision is available at the Registry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto in the interim.

02

Material facts

Parties

His Majesty the King

Respondent Counsel: Lisa Joyal

Sommer Elizabeth Etherden

Applicant Counsel: Paul Calarco

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Court of Appeal Motion Regarding Publication of Decision Under S.517 (publication Ban)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought release/publication of the Court of Appeal decision or broader access despite the s.517 order.
Respondent
The Crown relied on the s.517 non-publication order imposed at the bail hearing and argued the decision cannot be published while that order remains in force.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s.517

    A s.517 Criminal Code non-publication order prohibits publication, broadcast or transmission of evidence, information, representations and reasons covered by the order.

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal practice and statutory publication ban regime under s.517 Criminal Code

    Appellate courts must respect lower court publication bans and may delay public release of their reasons until such bans lapse; limited access (e.g. registry inspection) may be provided consistent with the ban.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because a s.517 non-publication order lawfully prevents publication of evidence, information and reasons from the bail hearing, the Court of Appeal will withhold publication of its decision while that order remains in effect and will permit access consistent with the ban (registry inspection), posting the decision publicly only once the order ceases to be in force.

Obiter and limits

  • The decision will be posted on the Court of Appeal website once the non-publication order ceases to be in effect.
  • An interim copy of the full decision is available for inspection at the Registry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto.

Court disposition

Publication of the Court of Appeal decision is withheld pursuant to the s.517 non-publication order; interim access at the Registry permitted; public posting deferred until the order lapses.

  • Decision not to be published, broadcast or transmitted while the s.517 non-publication order remains in effect.
  • The decision will be posted on the Court of Appeal for Ontario website once the non-publication order ceases to be in effect.
  • A copy of the full decision is available at the Registry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto in the interim.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal for Ontario · 26 September 2025

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.

Source document

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judgment· 26 September 2025

2025 ONCA 675

R. v. Etherden Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-09-26 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 675 Docket numbers COA-25-OM-0283 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal Subject Criminal Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Etherden, 2025 ONCA 675[1] DATE: 20250926 DOCKET: COA-25-OM-0283 Fairburn A.C.J.O. (Motion Judge)

BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Sommer Elizabeth Etherden Applicant Paul Calarco, for the applicant Lisa Joyal, for the responding party Heard: September 22, 2025 by video conference

REASONS FOR DECISION [1] A non-publication order under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, was imposed in this matter at the bail hearing in the court below. That s. 517 order precludes the publication, broadcast, or transmission of any evidence taken, information given, representations made, and reasons given. [2] The decision in R. v. Etherden, 2025 ONCA 675, contains information covered by that order. [3] Accordingly, the decision will be available on the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s website once the non-publication order ceases to be in effect. [4] In the interim, a copy of the full decision is available at the Registry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto. [1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 517 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

R. v. Etherden, 2025 ONCA 675

Case cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s.517

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.