S.C.R 122. QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKQB 151 Date: 2013 04 19 Docket: J. No. of 2011 Judicial Centre: Saskatoon BETWEEN: GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN (VICTIM SERVICES BRANCH) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and JAKE OTTERTAIL Counsel: Michael J. Morris for the applicant, Government of Saskatchewan (Victim Services Branch) Valerie A. Adamko and Jaimie L. MacLean for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen Morris P. Bodnar, Q.C. for the respondent, Jake Ottertail DECISION DOVELL J. April 19, 2013 [1] Jake Austin Lee Ottertail is charged that he did: ... between the 6th day of August, A.D. 2010, and the 7th day of August, A.D. 2010, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did: unlawfully cause the death of Bert Haverkort, and did thereby commit second degree murder, contrary to Section 235 of the Criminal Code. [2] The applicant, Government of Saskatchewan, Victim Services Branch, has brought a motion before myself as the trial judge for an order permitting a live audio/video broadcast of the trial of this matter set to proceed on April 29, 2013, from a Court of Queen’s Bench courtroom in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to a courtroom in a court house in the Greater Toronto area, Ontario, for the exclusive benefit of the family of Bert Haverkort, deceased. Although that trial originally was set for three week jury trial, in all likelihood the trial will not take that long as Mr. Ottertail re-elected to be tried by Queen’s Bench judge alone on April 18, 2013. [3] The respondent, Her Majesty the Queen, has consented to the draft order filed by the applicant and the respondent, Jake Austin Lee Ottertail, has taken no position regarding the application presently before the Court. [4] While the Court has great sympathy for the family of Bert Haverkort and understanding of their plight in not being able to attend all or none of the trial for personal reasons including financial, the Court has concluded that it must dismiss this application due to the serious concerns it has in granting the order being requested. [5] This application is both novel and unprecedented. Saskatchewan has developed protocol for accommodating the participants of the trial process including witnesses, lawyers and the judges within the trial process by way of video conferencing. The Court was presented with no case authority in which court has ever made an order allowing video conferencing for the benefit of specific non-participating persons within Saskatchewan let alone another province. This believe is for several very good reasons. [6] First, although this Court certainly has inherent jurisdiction to govern its own process within its own court within the Province of Saskatchewan, this Court has no jurisdiction to make any orders involving facilities and personnel in the Province of Ontario. It is being suggested that the Victim Services Branch in Ontario would be responsible for ensuring that whatever order the Court may make is complied with including the exclusion of cameras and recording devices. It is being suggested that only approximately 12 family members would be allowed in the courtroom in Ontario and that the Ontario Victim Services personnel would be policing those requirements. What would they do if member of the public wanted to observe the trial? What would happen if family member did not comply with any order made by this Court? The questions go on and on. As well, technical personnel would be required in Toronto to ensure the audio/video feed is connected properly on daily basis. The Court is not prepared to accept the argument of the applicant that courtroom in Toronto where only Bert Haverkort’s family would be in attendance is just an extension of the courtroom in Saskatoon. It is distinct courtroom in another province over which this Court has no jurisdiction or control. [7] Second, the Court is very concerned about the possible ramifications of granting such an order as being requested in this matter. If the Court was to allow this application a dangerous precedent would be set that could potentially result in multiple applications being made in future trials by numerous interested parties throughout the country or indeed the world claiming an inability to attend a court proceeding and asking that they be linked by a live audio/video feed. The Court has concluded that to grant this application would certainly open pandora’s box to which there would be no control and would not be in the interests of the administration of justice. [8] The Court realizes that the family of Bert Haverkort will be very disappointed with this decision and that indeed is regrettable, however, the Court has the responsibility of ensuring that administration of the trial process is fair and within the rule of law. The application is thus dismissed. J. M.L. DOVELL
The applicant, the Government of Saskatchewan Victim Services Branch requested an order permitting a live audio broadcast of the trial of the accused from a courtroom in Saskatoon to a courtroom in Toronto for the exclusive benefit of the family of the deceased victim. The accused took no position. HELD: The Court dismissed the application. Making an order for video-conferencing for non- participating persons was not permitted because the Court had no control over the policing of the courtroom in Ontario. It would set a dangerous precedent that could result in multiple applications being made in future trials by numerous interested parties in different jurisdictions over which the Court had no control.