Indictment #: 1307810001 Affiant: Janice Johnston Sworn On: September 6,,2016 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON Ter 45 + BETWEEN: V\ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent -and - TRAVIS VADER ‘Accused (Respondent) ~and- CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION; EDMONTON JOURNAL, a division of PostMedia Network Inc.; GLOBAL NEWS, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.; CTV, division of Bell Media Inc.; and THE CANADIAN PRESS Applicants AFFIDAVIT |, Janice Johnston of Edmonton, Alberta, Journalist, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: 1 1am a journalist for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”), and as such have personal knowledge of the facts herein stated, except where those facts are stated upon information and belief, in which case | believe the same to be true. 2. Ihave been covering the Lyle and Marie McCann story since the elderly couple was first reported missing in the summer of 2010. For more than 6 years, this case has consistently fen thousands of words and broadcast hours of FIAT ena ete soe win Sener lraneetint is extended to Siz. L2u Qi received ongoing extensive publicity. | have wi stories on CBC radio and TV about the McCann's and Travis Vader. \ — Ree“2« 3 | have read numerous stories about the McCann's and Travis Vader broadcast and Published by the other applicants and | believe that each of them has published a similar volume of stories relating to the investigation, prosecution, stay of proceedings, and trial in this case. 4, This case not only attracts significant public attention in Edmonton, Alberta, and Canada, but has also generated a great deal of interest around the world. | have received letters, emails and questions about this case from local Edmontonians, Albertans, Canadians, and from interested people as far away as Australia and the United Kingdom. 5. These letters and emails have generally expressed frustration with the RCMP’s investigation process, frustration with the justice system, compassion for the McCann’s and a desire to see these issues addressed and justice done in the outcome of this case. 6. When | wrote @ web story about an exclusive interview Mr. Vader offered me while in custody, nearly 100,000 people viewed that story. 7. Ihave also been tweeting the progress and developments in this case on Twitter. | currently have 2,412 followers on Twitter, dozens of which | attribute to new followers who are members of the public following the case. 8. _Insum, there has been, and continues to be, immense public interest in this case. 9. The unusual length of time that this investigation, prosecution and trial has taken, especially given allegations of police and prosecutorial misconduct, has only increased the public’s desire to see the conclusion of this case. 10. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on the police investigation of the McCann disappearance and to prosecute Mr. Vader. The public has a significant economic interest in this case.23s 11. Given the very real difficulties with the RCMP investigation into the McCanns’ disappearance, and the disclosure issues necessitating a stay of proceedings, | believe there is also a police accountability public interest in the outcome of this trial. 12. | have devoted decades of my career to court reporting. | have never seen a higher and more sustained, consistent public interest in any case. 13. The vast majority of people who see or hear my broadcasts, read my articles published online and follow my twitter feed do not attend the courthouse in person. | believe that television and the internet are the main source of news for most people. 14, | believe it is unreasonable to assume that every person interested in seeing or hearing the trial judge’s synopsis of his reasons for decision in this case can come to the courthouse to Personally witness Justice Thomas's decision. Further, it is unrealistic to assume that every person interested in this case will be able to navigate to the CanLII website and obtain and read the written decision. 15. Most importantly, | believe that the public's motivation to find and read the written decision will decrease significantly after the media has reported the outcome of the case. This is concerning to me, as someone who has worked hard to accurately convey important details of the investigation of the McCann murders and trial of Mr. Vader to the public for six years. 16. Firstly, this is an extremely complex case, with an intricate factual background, Aumerous witnesses, theories, and hours of legal argument. As months of judicial resources have been expended to develop the court’s conclusion in this case, the public has a right to receive a first-hand account of the Court’s reasons for decision, or its synopsis of that decision. 17. Secondly, | believe that a video feed of the decision will foster public confidence in the integrity of the court system and assist the public in understanding the administration of Justice. The reasons for decision are of great concern to not only Mr. Vader and the McCann family, but to the public to develop its own independent opinion of the judicial process. Thisahs first-hand account is essential to the truth-seeking function of the Applicant's freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter. 18. | believe the only way to ensure that the court’s decision and it’s synopsis of the reasons is accurately and completely conveyed to the public is by allowing the Applicants to record and transmit audio and video feed of the decision to the public. 19. An open and transparent court system is a hallmark of our society. Promoting effective and appropriate access to court proceedings is a constitutionally protected right guaranteed by 5 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The measures employed to promote effective access should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Streaming an audio or video recording of Justice Thomas’ synopsis of his decision to the public in this case promotes the open court principle and facilitates public accessibility to courtroom proceedings. 20. The first time a camera was allowed into a Canadian courtroom was over a quarter of a century ago, and since then, many Canadian provinces have allowed cameras to record Proceedings. Courts are increasingly recognizing the value to the public of recording and broadcasting court proceedings. 21, The Supreme Court of Canada is a pioneer of video recording. Our highest court has broadcast almost all of its proceedings on the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) since 1995, and has webcast those proceedings on its website since 2009. 22. In Manitoba, all three levels of Court collectively spearheaded the “Cameras in Courtroom Initiative”. This initiative is detailed on the “information for Media” page of the Manitoba Courts website, and is attached and marked as Exhibit “A” to this my affidavit. Since 2014, the court has permitted the media to broadcast and stream selective oral decisions, closing arguments, and appeals in all levels of court. 23. _ | am informed by my legal counsel, Tess Layton, Student-at-law, that the Federal Court of Appeal, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, and the BC Supreme Court have also conducted5s similar experiments or pilot projects to allow public access to recordings in court at varying times since the early 1990s. 24, — Ontario is the only province that has passed legislation banning audio and video coverage of court proceedings, subject to the discretion of the judge. Notwithstanding the general prohibition, a few proceedings have been broadcast with the court’s permission such as the Ontario Court of Appeal's review hearing which ultimately exonerated Steven Truscott on 2007, and the Court of Appeal’s acquittal of William Mullins-Johnson who was charged with murdering his four-year old niece in 1994. 25. The Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta has issued an “Electronic and Wireless Devices Policy” attached and marked as Exhibit “B” to this my affidavit is a copy of such policy. To my knowledge, this policy has not been passed into legislation and does not have the force and effect of law. To the best of my knowledge, this policy is not a directive from the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. 26. _ Notwithstanding the increasing acceptance of video and audio recordings in courtrooms across Canada in recent years, the Electronic and Wireless Devices Policy has not been reviewed since it was issued in 2012, 27. Not allowing a live stream of Justice Thomas’ decision fails to recognize the trend in Canadian courts which accepts technology into the courtroom, and fails to acknowledge the reality of our technologically advanced, wired-in world. It also fails to recognize that many interested members of the public will not be able to attend court to witness the decision, and will likely never read the full reasons for decision of the court. 28. The decision from Justice Thomas is perhaps the final chapter in a six year old case that has garnered widespread public and international interest. Broadcasting the verdict and a synopsis of the reasons for the verdict will not affect the outcome, but it will give those interested the opportunity to see and hear the decision as its being deliveredin full context.29, | believe that right should not be limited to a few members of the public who are fortunate enough to be able to attend, and who are given access to the courtroom. 30. _ I make this affidavit in support of an application to allow the Applicants to broadcast the court proceedings on September 15, 2016 in this matter. SWORN before me at Edmonton, the Province of Alberta, this 6" day of September, 2016. ‘A Commissionerdor Oaths in and for Alberta C. Layton Student-at-Law- i q tribit * A = referred to in th Manitoba Courts his is Exhibit Aa red 10 in the Information for Media Who to Contact Court Policies/Prac Covers Cameras in Courtrooms Initiative Access to ecords/Fil Effect of Bans on Publication Tre ri ourt Proceeding Exhibits Release of Court nts Difference between inquests and Inquiries Visit our Video Library Who to Contact The Executive Assistant to the Chief Justices and Chief Judge is the media relations officer for the courts ‘and judiciary in Manitoba and can be reached by telephone at (204) 945-8043; by fax at (204) 945-5751; or by email at aimee fortier@gov.mb.ca. The Executive Assistant is located at the Winnipeg Law Courts Complex, 2nd Floor ~ 408 York Avenue, Winnipeg. ‘The Executive Assistant will provide you with assistance in obtaining public information from the court records of the Provincial Court, Court of Queen's Bench and Court of Appeal, found in court offices throughout Manitoba. The Executive Assistant will also handle all requests for comment from specific judges and/or provide a response to requests for comment on issues affecting judicial administration. Court Policies/Practices Affecting Media Coverage Media cameras are not permitted in court facilities in Manitoba, unless prior permission has been granted by the Chief Justices and Chief Judge, e.g. for swearing in ceremonies for newly appointed judges or pursuant to an undertaking related to the use of the designated media area within the Winnipeg Law Courts Complex. Signed undertakings must be received in the office of the Executive Assistant to the Chief Justices ‘and Chief Judge before they take effect. Media requests to have a camera present during a court proceeding, or to broadcast directly from a court proceeding fall within the discretion of the presiding judge and can be made by request to aimee fortier@gov.mb.ca or by application to the Court. Guidelines have been issued for this purpose. Please review the Manitoba Courts Media and Audio Video Recording inthe Courtroom Guidelines for more information. NOTE: The Media Audio Visual Recordings in the Courtrooms guidelines pre-date the pilot project dealing with cameras in courtrooms, The pilot project does not require theprocess set out in sections Four (Application for Leave to Broadcast), Five (Objection to application) and Six (Hearing of Application) unless the requesting party wishes to pursue the broadcast request following a denial pursuant to the pilot project. ‘The Manitoba Courts Electronic Device Policy provides directives on the presence and use of electronic counsel > members of the media who have signed an undertaking with the Court 3) Penalties: ‘Anyone who, in the opinion of the presiding judge, court staff or court security personnel, engages in unacceptable use may be: instructed to tur off their electronic device instructed to forfeit their electronic device while in the courtroom asked to leave the courtroom cited for contempt of court, the penalty being at the discretion of the presiding judge Definition of Unacceptable Use: Unacceptable use anywhere in the courthouse, including courtrooms, is any use that breaches this Policy, causes a disturbance, interferes with court operations, or is offensive. vy vyExamples of unacceptable use, as determined by a judge, court staff or court security personnel, are: (2) Causing interference with court sound systems or other technology, whether deliberate or inadvertent (b) Taking photographs or movies of anyone in @ courtroom, or anywhere in the courthouse. (c) Making an audio recording of proceedings in any courtroom, jury room, chambers or hearing oom unless permitted by the presiding judge or by court policy (media), (2) In the courtroom or hearing room, any use inconsistent with court business. (@) Any use that may lead to a breach of privacy or courtroom decorum, or interferes with the administration of justice, Note on Availability of Wireless Networking ~ The Court takes no responsibilty for the availabilty, Performance or security of the wireless network or of any device using the network, Troubleshooting and technical support are the sole responsibilty of the owner of the electronic device. If you have any questions about this policy, please check with security personnel in the courthouse, or contact Michelle Somers Executive Legal Officer Court of Queen’s Bench 403-297-5003 michelle. somers@elbertecourts.caIndictment #: 13078180001 Affiant: Janice Johnston ‘Sworn On: September 6, 2016 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. Respondent and - ‘TRAVIS VADER ‘Accused (Respondent) -and- CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION; EDMONTON JOURNAL, a division of PostMedia Network Inc.; GLOBAL NEWS, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.; CCT, division of Bell Media Inc.; and THE CANADIAN PRESS Applicants AFFIDAVIT REYNOLDS, MIRTH, RICHARDS & FARMER LLP 3200, 10180 -101 STREET EDMONTON AB 15) 3W8 Lawyer: FRED KOZAK TELEPHONE: (780) 425-9510 FAX: (780) 429-3044 FILE NO: 73059-098-FSK