R v O.N.E.
 | This article has no lead section. (May 2017) |
| R v O.N.E. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: 2001: June 18; Judgment: 2001: November 15. | |
| Full case name | Vancouver Sun v. Her Majesty The Queen, O.N.E. and the Attorney General of Canada |
| Citations | [2001] SCC 77, [2001] 3 SCR 478 |
| Docket No. | 28190 [1] |
| Prior history | APPEAL from SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA |
| Ruling | Appeal allowed |
| Court membership | |
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | Yes |
| Majority | Iacobucci J. |
Iacobucci J. wrote for a unanimous Court that the appeal raised substantially similar issues to those considered by the Court in R v Mentuck. He concluded that the publication ban sought should not have been ordered by the trial judge in light of the appropriate common law test for a publication ban. The appeal was therefore allowed. The publication ban, which was varied by the Court, was declared effective for a period of one year following the release of this judgment, because by that time, the operations in which the police officers were then involved should be completed.[2]
References
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 28190 Supreme Court of Canada
- ^ canlii.org: "R. v. O.N.E., [2001] 3 SCR 478, 2001 SCC 77 (CanLII)"