Rule Number One: We Don't Talk About the Supreme Court

Closed courts invite rumours and distrust.

We need to elect our judges:

The Supreme Court says a series of errors, and not a “secret trial,” led to a police informant’s criminal case being temporarily scrubbed from the public domain and ordered that some information about the case be made public.

The ruling published Friday puts an end to a two-year long controversy after the Quebec Court of Appeal revealed the existence of what it called a “secret trial” in an unnamed trial court involving a police informant.

Article content

In a new ruling that did not set new jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ordered the appeal court to review the trial court’s ruling, redact any information that could identify the informant, and release a version of the decision that was until now completely sealed from the public.

Although the top court acknowledged that the case had no formal case number, was left off the trial court’s docket and hearing roll and led to a decision whose existence and content was not public, it served a harsh rebuke to the Quebec Court of Appeal for causing unnecessary alarm by calling it a “secret trial.”

The ruling is a partial victory for a coalition of media organizations and the Attorney General of Quebec, who brought forward the appeal in the hopes of having the confidentiality order around the case lifted in whole or in part, “or at least that limited access be given to the information that remained confidential.”

Most of the details about the underlying case are and will remain confidential.

The SCC said the case of the police informant facing criminal charges in an unnamed trial court went unnecessarily dark after the informant filed a motion to stay the proceedings.

 

This is a precedent waiting to happen.

Who else will get a trial scrubbed from public record and memory?