A fight launched by the Star to unseal documents related to a Toronto gang sweep search warrant, which may reveal links to Mayor Rob Ford, has highlighted obstacles that keep public information secret.

While court access is a constitutional right in Canada and the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of publicly available documents — including search warrants — media law experts say that principle is being obstructed by procedure and by public officials who are unable or unwilling to help.

“The problem here is that the search warrant materials are filed in such a manner that they are virtually inaccessible,” said the Star’s lawyer, Ryder Gilliland.

Following raids in June that culminated a year-long gang sweep by Toronto and other police forces dubbed Project Traveller, the Star began searching for warrants used in executing the raids.

The Star currently has an application before the courts to have information used to obtain one warrant unsealed. The newspaper has argued that a potential link to Mayor Rob Ford makes disclosing those documents in the public interest.

But that search warrant and the affixed sealing order located by the Star is just one of 40 such documents police say they executed in the commission of Project Traveller. The Star and other media outlets have been unable to locate the remaining warrants or their associated sealing orders.

Part of the challenge is that members of the public seeking search warrants must fill out application forms that include both “address” and “sworn/execution date” as mandatory fields. The form requires a minimum of five business days for processing.

These requirements make it “impossible in most cases for anyone other than possibly the subject of search to use this to any avail,” said Gilliland.

“The manner in which these documents are being filed — because it appears to be an administrative problem — is undercutting the openness principle.”

Peter Jacobsen, lawyer for other media outlets fighting to have the warrant unsealed, agreed the procedure to search for warrants limits the public’s access to vital court documents. He added that arguing for access in court can be financially impossible for anyone other than large media organizations.

“These are warrants that allow police to come into homes and offices and remove personal documents. I think the public has a right to know what grounds the police are using to do that,” he said.

Brendan Crawley, spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, said the ministry recognizes there may be difficulties accessing search warrants when information such as the address is not known.

“The ministry is committed to maximum possible openness and transparency in court proceedings permitted by law,” he said.

Although Crawley said warrants are filed based on additional information, such as the justice who approved them, a clerk at Old City Hall court confirmed their computer system does not allow staff to search using any other fields.

Following a request for assistance in locating the relevant search warrants, Crawley said Toronto courts were searching for warrants sealed by Justices Sally Marin and Philip Downes — the only two justices the Star is aware may have made those orders.

In a ruling Tuesday on the application made by the Star and other media outlets to have the one known warrant unsealed, Justice Downes said he was sympathetic to the difficulty faced by the media and public in obtaining court documents not subject to orders restricting access.

“Where there is no such order, and where a warrant has been executed and material seized, I do not understand why there should be any resistance to providing the material sought by the media,” he wrote.

However, Downes wrote that he did not think it was in the scope of his authority to issue a “blanket order” telling court offices how to respond to requests from the public for court documents.

Crown attorney Paul Renwick, who is acting on the application filed by the Star and other media, and is also leading the prosecution against the Project Traveller accused, said it’s not his role to assist media with locating the remaining sealing orders.

“I understand your concern on behalf of the public and all of that. I’m not trying to thwart that,” he said, adding he knows Justice Downes was “leaning” on him Tuesday to assist counsel with locating the sealing orders. “The court’s asked me to be cooperative. I’m trying to do that.”

But later, Renwick said it wasn’t in the interest of his prosecution to assist the Star.

“It doesn’t help me in my prosecution of the accused to be distracted by applications to unseal warrants that I’m going to eventually get to and unseal and do all of that as part of the normal disclosure process,” he said. “So I don’t want to assist with making it easier for you to go get other orders.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Jacobsen, however, said it’s the Crown’s duty to assist with an open court process.

“The Crown’s role is to serve the public. One aspect of that is to not make things more dense and more difficult with respect to transparency,” he said.

A 1982 Supreme Court decision in the case of Nova Scotia v. investigative journalist Linden MacIntyre was precedent-setting in its affirmation of public accessibility to court proceedings and documents — specifically search warrants after they have been executed.

That access should only be limited if there are compelling reasons, the court said, such as protecting confidential informants.