Media granted permission to broadcast July 9 hearing about cameras in court for Nygard extradition
July hearing will be about media application to live stream Nov. 15-19 Peter Nygard extradition hearing
A consortium of local, national and international media outlets have won their bid to broadcast a July court hearing where they will argue for permission to live stream the extradition hearing of former fashion mogul Peter Nygard.
The consortium is made up of CBC, CTV, Global News, Postmedia, the Globe and Mail and the New York Times. On July 9, lawyers will argue for the right to broadcast the Nygard extradition hearing and those arguments will be live streamed.
"Based upon the evidence that I've examined, there is no risk to the administration of justice if the hearing is broadcast," Chief Justice Glenn Joyal said in an oral decision Wednesday morning.
Fred Kozak, the lawyer representing the media consortium, told the court that granting the motion to broadcast arguments for and against the media's application to live stream the Nygard extradition hearing would give the public a better understanding of this case and the way the court functions.
"This case provides a great opportunity to educate the public on how the courts make decisions," Kozak said.
That's especially true now, in the midst of a pandemic that's resulted in so many restrictions on public access, he said.
"We can't assume because something was done one way 10 years ago that it always has to be done that way," Kozak said.
"Given the fact that Mr. Nygard, if extradited, may never face criminal proceedings in Canada, his allegations that his accusers are lying may never be aired in a Canadian court. Canadians have a right to hear the evidence of those allegations," CBC journalist and producer of The Fifth Estate Timothy Sawa wrote in an affidavit.
Sawa, host of the CBC podcast about the fashion designer called Evil By Design, has been investigating allegations involving Nygard since 2008.
Nygard and his lawyers took no position on the issue but Canada and the United States of America are opposed.
"What's so special about this case that suggests live streaming is important?" asked Sean Sass, the lawyer for Canada and the U.S.
WATCH | Caroline Barghout's report:
"They want to do something different here, they want to do something more," Sass said.
He argued that the media has to show how that would enhance the public interest.
"They need to convince the court that live stream broadcasting of the broadcast application is necessary," Sass said.
Since 2014, Manitoba courts have allowed live streaming of 10 decisions, including the February 2017 Andrea Giesbrecht sentencing decision and the May 2018 decision in the Guido Amsel case.
Sass said the only cases that Manitoba has broadcast so far are all decisions read by judges, not criminal trials.
"We want to maintain the decorum," he said. "We want to maintain that the public isn't seeing theatrics."
"This isn't about court TV," Joyal said. "We're not setting up some model for the future. We are talking about a very distinct hearing that would be based on a protocol that still has to be worked out."
Joyal said the consortium must now work with the courts to come up with protocols specific to this case to deal with the live broadcast and prepare for any issues that may arise.
"In my view, this is a case where important enhancements are achievable with the open court principle and with the public," Joyal said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
