In Toronto Star v. His Majesty the King, 2025 ONSC 2146, released on April 7, Justice Andrew Goodman found that case law made it clear that the court is not obliged to take steps beyond having its physical doors open to satisfy the open court principle.
“The door to the courtroom was and remains wide open to any member of the public and media. The open court principle is fully engaged without the provision of virtual access,” the judge wrote.
The court did, however, exercise its discretion to grant certain media outlets virtual access to the trial of Randall McKenzie and Brandi Stewart-Sperry, who are charged with the first-degree murder of Ontario Provincial Police Const. Greg Pierzchala. Pierzchala was shot six times while responding to a call about a vehicle in a ditch on Dec. 27, 2022.
On March 25, 2025, the applicants, Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. and Metroland Media Group Ltd., filed an application for an order that the trial being held in Cayuga, Ont., be available virtually, such that representatives of the applicants could be permitted to access and observe the proceedings virtually.
The next day, other media organizations, including Postmedia Network Inc., the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada, the Canadian Press and CTV News, filed a similar application requesting virtual access.
The Crown did not oppose the applications.
The court approved the request on March 27, noting that reasons would follow.
In the decision, Justice Goodman noted that there was no question that the open court procedure was in effect in the proceeding at issue.
“Unlike many cases in which the open court principle is cited, this application does not concern the obstruction of the public or media from observing or reporting on court proceedings in order to give proper effect to interests such as the privacy of a litigant,” the judge wrote.
He cited Endean v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 42, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal found that an Ontario judge hearing a matter outside the province was not acting in breach of the open court principle by failing to provide virtual access to the hearing.
In Endean, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the location of a hearing in a publicly accessible place outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction did not, on its own, create a requirement for a video link to protect the open court principle.
Justice Goodman found that case law made it clear that the court is not obliged to take steps beyond having its physical doors open to satisfy the open court principle.
“Put another way, the open court principle does not equate to having the convenience of a video feed for those that cannot make it to the court for a variety of reasons,” the judge wrote.
However, the judge nevertheless granted video access to the trial to the applicants, noting the remoteness of Cayuga from major news centres in Ontario and the resource constraints faced by news organizations.
“It is due solely to these realities that video access was granted, as the open court principle would not have been offended by my denial of the applicant’s request. Ultimately, virtual access to decisions of this nature are for judicial discretion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis,” the judge wrote.
Counsel for the parties were not immediately available for comment.
Counsel for Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. and Metroland Media Group was Justin Manoryk of Torstar Corp.
Counsel for the other media organizations that applied for virtual access was Brendan Hughes of ORP Law.
If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.