 |
- On March 29, 2005 a publication ban was ordered with respect to the testimony of Jean S. Brault, which was then about to begin, and I undertook to hear representations by counsel for interested parties at the end of his deposition to determine if the ban should be released in whole or in part. His testimony ended yesterday afternoon. Counsel for Mr. Brault, supported by counsel for Mr. Guité, asks that the publication ban remain in effect until the completion of the trial of their clients, now fixed to begin on June 6th. All of the other parties that have made representations submit that it should be lifted, in whole or in part, except for counsel for Mr. Welch, who does not have standing, and who wants a delay to consider his position. This application cannot be granted; the interests of the other parties are of greater importance.
- I am of the opinion that almost all of Mr. Brault's testimony and the documentation filed as part of his evidence have little to do with the accusations of fraud and conspiracy that he is facing. It is in the public interest that this evidence, with only a few exceptions, be made available to the public, remembering that publication bans constitute a violation of constitutional rights and are to be imposed rarely, particularly in the context of a public inquiry. At the time the ban was imposed, I did not know what Mr. Brault would say, and imposed the ban as a precaution, to prevent a possible prejudice to his right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. I will make a few exceptions to this general release, recalling the remarks of Mr. Justice Lamer in Dagenais c. C.B.C., [1994] 3 R.C.S. 835 at page 886 where he states:
- Lorsque le procès est précédé d'une période intense de publicité relativement à des questions qui feront l'objet du procès, la situation est plus problématique. L'impact des directives est alors considérablement atténué. La publicité peut créer, dans l'esprit du jury, des impressions qui ne peuvent être consciemment dissipées. Le jury risque en fin de compte d'être incapable de distinguer la preuve entendue au procès de l'information implantée par un déversement continu de publicité.
- The evidence of the frequency of the contacts between Mr. Brault and Mr. Guité, and of the dealings they had, as described in Mr. Brault's testimony, could leave impressions in the minds of potential jurors, impressions that they might have difficulty to set aside, that they conspired together or were motivated by a common desire to derive improper benefits from their relationship. To reduce the possibility of such impressions being created, a few portions of Mr. Brault's testimony as identified below, and a few exhibits, will remain subject to the publication ban until after their trial.
- Accordingly, the publication ban ordered on March 29, 2005, is lifted with respect to the deposition of Jean S. Brault and all representations by counsel made with respect to it, except for
- 1) The following portions of the transcription of Mr. Brault's testimony and the related portions of the broadcast tapes, namely:
- Volume 88, for March 30, 2005, page 15688, line 3 to page 15690, line 13;
- Volume 89, for March 31, 2005, page 15806, line 9 to page 15807, line 8;
- Volume 90, for April 1, 2005, page 15926, line 10 to page 15932, line 10;
- Volume 91, for April 4, 2005, page 16027, line 9 to page 16028, line 20, and page 16032, line 17 to page 16058, line 3;
- Volume 92, for April 5, 2005, page 16284, line 21 to page 16297, line 17, and page 16303, line 4 to page 16312, line 11;
- Volume 93, for April 6, 2005, page 16557, line 7 to line 18;
- 2)
- Exhibit C313, page 78
- Exhibit C299, pages 9 to 27 inclusive including the addenda following page 9, and pages 33 to 59.
__________________________________________
John H. Gomery, Commissioner
Dated at Montreal, April 7, 2005
|
