TRURO, N.S. — A lawyer representing various media organizations seeking the release of redacted information related to the April mass shootings has filed an application for a judicial review of previous decisions made by provincial court Judge Laurel Halfpenny-MacQuarrie.
“Because we say, or will say, there are errors in law,” media lawyer David Coles said after a court hearing in Truro on Monday morning.
The redactions are in relation to search warrants sought by the RCMP as they gathered information and interviewed witnesses after the shooting rampage by a Dartmouth denturist that began in Portapique on April 18 and left 22 people dead. The shooter was killed by an RCMP officer as he stopped for gas at a service station in Enfield.
Cole’s application seeks to have a Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice review decisions made in July by Halfpenny-MacQuarrie, labelling some Crown redactions as permanent and some as temporary.
Those decisions were made during an in-camera hearing between the judge, the federal and provincial Crowns involved in the case and RCMP Sgt. Angela Hawryluk, who originally had the search warrant informations placed under seal by a justice of the peace.
“That’s not defined, presumably it means forever,” Coles said, of the permanent redactions. “And, she decides there are things that are going to be temporarily redacted and, there’s a huge number of temporary redactions.”
Federal Crown attorney Mark Coven argued during Monday’s hearing that the entire process would have halted until a decision is rendered by the Supreme Court, if the application is ato be delayed until a ruling was made on the review application is accepted.
“I say, no, we shouldn’t face that further delay and anything they decide would be additional to what she’s done,” Coles said.
In other words, nothing will have been prejudiced by what the judge has done and the process can continue.
“Let’s just keep going forward.”
Another issue that Coles raised in his application for a judicial review is a ruling by Halfpenny-MacQuarrie that he cannot challenge her decision of what should be permanent and what should be temporary.
“Let’s assume that court agrees with some or all of my arguments. Then that will mean additional redactions released by order of that court and or it may mean that further cross-examination is allowed to me, or that I get a further argument right in relation to some of these redactions based upon something that was filed,” Coles said.
Monday’s hearing was supposed to deal with oral arguments by Coles regarding the lifting of further redactions along with trying to seek a timeline for the unsealing of the temporary redactions.
Those arguments now are scheduled for Oct. 16. An earlier hearing is set for Sept. 21 when the next six warrants are to be unsealed.
Halfpenny-MacQuarrie said she will release her decision regarding the judicial review application on Oct. 2.
