Child Welfare Law in Ontario

A legal restriction on media reporting details that could identify individuals involved in ongoing child protection cases, even with their consent.

The media's ability to report details of child welfare cases without identifying individuals involved allows for public oversight of government actions.

Hearings related to child protection cases are generally considered private, but a judge can allow journalists and spectators to attend.

A judge can restrict the publication of evidence presented in child protection hearings to protect a child from potential emotional harm.

A judge has the power to exclude reporters from parts of a hearing or ban the publication of certain evidence to protect a child's emotional well-being.

This ban safeguards an individual's privacy by restricting the publication of information related to their mental fitness assessment during criminal proceedings. The judge can lift the ban depending on the balance between open justice and privacy.

This ban limits the media from disclosing specific details of search warrants, including the locations searched, individuals involved, and potential suspects, if no charges are filed. This protects privacy and prevents jeopardizing investigations.

Judges can seal search warrants and associated documents if revealing them could hinder justice or lead to information misuse. This safeguards investigations, protects confidential informants, and prevents potential harm to involved parties.

Jurors are prohibited from revealing information about the jury's deliberations outside the courtroom, except for specific cases like investigations of obstruction of justice or jury tampering.

Individuals who breach publication bans face a maximum fine of $2,000 and six months in jail. Corporations face a maximum fine of $100,000.

Media outlets found guilty of disregarding court orders, including publication bans, can face criminal prosecution, potentially leading to imprisonment up to two years.

Violating publication bans can also be classified as contempt of court, allowing judges to impose higher fines than under criminal prosecution.

The ban remains in place until the defendant is discharged or, if extradition is ordered, until the conclusion of their trial in the foreign state.

Immigration Hearings are usually public, but can be held privately or under certain conditions, become confidential for security reasons.

The Immigration and Refugee Board has the right to conduct sessions in private to ensure confidentiality or protect sensitive information.

Access can be restricted to protect a person's life, liberty, or security; safeguard national security information; or ensure a fair proceeding.

Refugee claims are typically heard in private but the panel may allow access to proceedings when appropriate.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration can issue a certificate for undesirable individuals or security threats.

A Federal Court judge reviews the certificate to determine if it's lawful and reasonable.

The reviewing judge and any appellate courts must ensure the confidentiality of sensitive information to protect national security or individual safety.

The fundamental principles that guide how our society operates, ensuring fair and predictable justice based on laws and evidence.

The two main categories of law are criminal law, which deals with offenses against society, and civil law, which deals with disputes between individuals or entities.

A deliberate or reckless act that harms a person, damages property, or goes against society's moral standards.

It lists specific actions that are considered criminal, sets punishments for each crime, and outlines how to prosecute and try cases in court.

The government entity responsible for bringing charges against someone accused of committing a crime.

A set of criteria used to determine whether a court should issue a sealing order, balancing the public interest in open court proceedings with the privacy rights of individuals.

These recordings are considered confidential and are not intended for public consumption, as they often contain sensitive information and may not represent the full context of the proceedings.

To ensure transparency and accountability, allowing the public to understand the court's decision-making process.

Ensuring the security of personal data and preventing the misuse of court records.

Judges can issue orders sealing documents, restricting access to discovery transcripts, and limiting public participation in certain hearings.

To protect confidential information from public disclosure, often to safeguard privacy or prevent prejudice in ongoing legal cases.

By arguing that the public interest in open court proceedings outweighs the privacy concerns.

To allow law enforcement to search a specific location for evidence related to a crime.

A court order restricting media from publishing information in a civil lawsuit, designed to protect sensitive information, ensure fair trial, and prevent harm to individuals.

Publication bans in civil cases are justified to protect children, witnesses, trade secrets, or when public presence would hinder the administration of justice.

The party seeking to shield evidence in a civil action needs to demonstrate a serious risk of exposing confidential information or a public interest in protecting it.

Even with publication bans, the principle of open courts applies, meaning trials are generally public, and bans are imposed on a case-by-case basis.

Publication bans typically apply to voir dire (jury selection) hearings in civil cases, preventing media from reporting details until deliberations begin.

Violating a publication ban in a civil case can result in contempt of court penalties, such as fines, or potentially criminal prosecution if the ban is statutorily based.

The risk of contempt of court increases as a civil case nears trial, but is generally considered lower than in criminal cases.

Once a civil lawsuit is officially filed, the matter is considered sub judice, which means publication bans are more likely to be in place and the risk of contempt increases.

Military courts handle disciplinary cases within the armed forces, applying the military code of service discipline. These courts are responsible for trying members of the Armed Forces and accompanying citizens for offenses committed under military law.

Administrative tribunals act like courts but focus on specific areas like employment insurance, disability benefits, refugee status, or workplace standards. They review evidence, make rulings, and can be appealed to higher courts.

Judges are free from government interference in their decisions. They are protected from threats to their salaries, pensions, or length of service, ensuring their impartiality.

Judges act as umpires in courtrooms, ensuring fair proceedings. They decide on relevant evidence, assess charter breaches, and impose punishment if necessary.

Jurors are randomly selected citizens who decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused. They are instructed on the law by the judge and review the facts of the case.

The Crown Attorney represents the state in criminal prosecutions. They are responsible for presenting evidence and arguing for convictions, but also have a duty to ensure fairness.

Lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants present their client's cases forcefully. They must act fairly and ethically, ensuring all legal rights are respected.

A crime is an act that violates the law and is punishable by the state. It can range from minor offenses to serious felonies.

The Canadian Judicial Council investigates complaints against federally appointed judges, ensuring accountability and maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

Judges are selected through a rigorous process. Lawyers apply for positions, are screened by committees, and sometimes face public elections.

Only Parliament can remove a superior court judge. This requires a vote by both the House of Commons and the Senate.

A hung jury occurs when the jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict. This results in a mistrial, and a new trial may be ordered.

The adversarial system pits two opposing sides against each other in court, allowing both parties to present their arguments and evidence.

The Attorney General oversees the prosecution of criminal code offenses and provincial law violations. They provide legal advice to police, investigate violations, and decide whether to prosecute.