Talk:Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association

Did the CLA honestly think a murder case would be compelling enough for the Supreme Court to invoke public interest clause in the absence of a provincial clause

I am not surprised by this ruling at all.

An alleged perpetrator can unfortunately murder one hundred people, and that would still be incredibly small compared to the average province's population (where this population is the basis for public interest).

It should not be a surprise that, when comparing the desire of the CLA to access evidence under "public interest" for a murder trial, they did not get their way.

Now, if they had acted on behalf of a pension plan, say Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, I could more seriously consider their request to override the absence of the provincial legislation clause since we are talking hundreds of thousands of people being effected by withholding such information.

However, as it sits, the defendant was alleged to have murdered someone and there was supposedly some evidence that was missing.

• That is very unfortunate, however the defendant's plight is not sufficient to invoke the public interest clause when it is only himself who is affected.

• Further, even if the information that was withheld may "open some eyes" in the public with respect to the process, the information (had it been disclosed if the SCC ruled for a release) itself does not satisfy "public interest" as the process did not (and does not) effect the majority of the province's citizens (who are not criminals).

Had the SCC ruled in favour of a release, the most that would have been accomplished would be (in my opinion) some curious or enlightened minds learning about some aspect of the process that resulted in the missing evidence.

Nothing more could have been gleaned. It would therefore be a waste to use this case as "the one" to act out of public interest, as the number of people effected is small.

Asking the SCC to invoke the "public interest" clause should be much more compelling than a murder case with some potentially-mishandled evidence that may have involved incompetence by a government lawyer.

It would be easier to ask the SCC to invoke public interest in situations where the defendent-on-trial is claiming to act out of the public interest, where the defendant claims the withholding of evidence by the government is solely due to their culpability in harming the public-at-large through acts that involve increased taxation or deferred allocations of funds (say education) that are intended for the public (everyone)