Adam Rodgers2021-09-16T19:57:22+00:00

GET EXCLUSIVE ACCESS

Subscribe to me on Patreon to get full access to all videos and exclusive analysis.

Access Premium Content On Patreon

Already a subscriber? You can login here.

Adam Rodgers has been a ground breaking inquiry, litigation and criminal defense lawyer as well as a leading business and political advisor.

Learn more about Adam

Latest Videos

Much of the information that the public may be hoping to see examined during the Mass Casualty Commission hearings is already compiled and available, but is sealed by Court Order. The ongoing battle over the disclosure of this information can give us insight into potential serious difficulties with the upcoming Commission hearings.

When the police want to search any private property, they need to provide information to a Judge or Justice of the Peace that is sufficient to justify the search. This application document is called an Information to Obtain (ITO). The police are obligated to disclose all relevant information they have about the case when requesting the search, and the RCMP did just that when they applied for a warrant to search the various properties owned by Gabriel Wortman in the aftermath of the mass shootings.

While, by default, the public is entitled to know what information was submitted, there are exceptions. There is a concurrent process to the search warrant request that allows the police to request that the information be sealed from public view, and only disclosed upon a successful application to have it unsealed.

Such applications are typically made by a defendant seeking to claim that their Charter rights to be free from an unreasonable search may have been violated by the search warrant being granted, but may also be made by media organizations, as is the case with the Mass Casualty document.

Information in the ITO may be blacked out for several reasons. If it might compromise the identity of a confidential informant, compromise the nature and extent of an ongoing investigation, endanger a person engaged in “particular intelligence gathering techniques” (such as undercover work), prejudice the interests of an innocent person, or for “any other sufficient reason”, the Crown may justifiably opposing disclosure.

Though sometimes justifiable, these exceptions can be susceptible to overreach by the police if they have reasons to wish to keep information secret. In my experience, police officers vetting ITO’s tend to lean towards non-disclosure of information. Crown prosecutors have the ultimate responsibility to make the judgment call (subject to judicial oversight), but often seem to side with the police view.

The search warrants in this matter were granted on April 21, 2020, and the battle over disclosure of redacted portions has been ongoing nearly ever since. Multiple media organizations are involved, with multiple lawyers, and the resources dedicated to this have been significant, financially and otherwise.

With the number of parties involved and resources required, the Judge hearing the matter (who has been taken out of ‘regular’ circulation) has been using the Courtroom which was constructed for the Desmond Fatality Inquiry in Port Hawkesbury on days when the Inquiry is not sitting, as it allows for more than a dozen lawyers, with technology to incorporate others on a virtual basis.

Each court appearance involves thousands of dollars in legal fees for each Party, as briefs and affidavits need to be drafted and negotiations take place over what can be released. The judge needs to consider whether there are things going on in the investigation that need to be protected that are not obvious from the ITO itself. That also requires that some of the hearings be “in camera”, or secret from the applicants.

I have reviewed some of the ITO material and the resulting reporting. Much of what has been released during the ongoing process seems to be quite benign, such as names of people we already know from other sources, types of firearms the killer possessed, and locations and details of the geography of Portapique.

All of this is significant because of how it may translate into the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings. Members of the public may have presumed that all of this information, that is to say everything the RCMP did and observed during the shooting spree, would become public during the Commission proceedings.

It is reasonable, therefore, to question why the RCMP and Crown are fighting this disclosure if it is going to become public just a few months anyway during the Commission hearings.

The bigger concern is that it may also be the case that if the RCMP is fighting disclosure now, they may continue to do so. If this is indicative of their approach to disclosure, it may be very difficult for the Commission to get the answers the victims’ families and the public are all seeking.

Much of the information that the public may be hoping to see examined during the Mass Casualty Commission hearings is already compiled and available, but is sealed by Court Order. The ongoing battle over the disclosure of this information can give us insight into potential serious difficulties with the upcoming Commission hearings.

When the police want to search any private property, they need to provide information to a Judge or Justice of the Peace that is sufficient to justify the search. This application document is called an Information to Obtain (ITO). The police are obligated to disclose all relevant information they have about the case when requesting the search, and the RCMP did just that when they applied for a warrant to search the various properties owned by Gabriel Wortman in the aftermath of the mass shootings.

While, by default, the public is entitled to know what information was submitted, there are exceptions. There is a concurrent process to the search warrant request that allows the police to request that the information be sealed from public view, and only disclosed upon a successful application to have it unsealed.

Such applications are typically made by a defendant seeking to claim that their Charter rights to be free from an unreasonable search may have been violated by the search warrant being granted, but may also be made by media organizations, as is the case with the Mass Casualty document.

Information in the ITO may be blacked out for several reasons. If it might compromise the identity of a confidential informant, compromise the nature and extent of an ongoing investigation, endanger a person engaged in “particular intelligence gathering techniques” (such as undercover work), prejudice the interests of an innocent person, or for “any other sufficient reason”, the Crown may justifiably opposing disclosure.

Though sometimes justifiable, these exceptions can be susceptible to overreach by the police if they have reasons to wish to keep information secret. In my experience, police officers vetting ITO’s tend to lean towards non-disclosure of information. Crown prosecutors have the ultimate responsibility to make the judgment call (subject to judicial oversight), but often seem to side with the police view.

The search warrants in this matter were granted on April 21, 2020, and the battle over disclosure of redacted portions has been ongoing nearly ever since. Multiple media organizations are involved, with multiple lawyers, and the resources dedicated to this have been significant, financially and otherwise.

With the number of parties involved and resources required, the Judge hearing the matter (who has been taken out of ‘regular’ circulation) has been using the Courtroom which was constructed for the Desmond Fatality Inquiry in Port Hawkesbury on days when the Inquiry is not sitting, as it allows for more than a dozen lawyers, with technology to incorporate others on a virtual basis.

Each court appearance involves thousands of dollars in legal fees for each Party, as briefs and affidavits need to be drafted and negotiations take place over what can be released. The judge needs to consider whether there are things going on in the investigation that need to be protected that are not obvious from the ITO itself. That also requires that some of the hearings be “in camera”, or secret from the applicants.

I have reviewed some of the ITO material and the resulting reporting. Much of what has been released during the ongoing process seems to be quite benign, such as names of people we already know from other sources, types of firearms the killer possessed, and locations and details of the geography of Portapique.

All of this is significant because of how it may translate into the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings. Members of the public may have presumed that all of this information, that is to say everything the RCMP did and observed during the shooting spree, would become public during the Commission proceedings.

It is reasonable, therefore, to question why the RCMP and Crown are fighting this disclosure if it is going to become public just a few months anyway during the Commission hearings.

The bigger concern is that it may also be the case that if the RCMP is fighting disclosure now, they may continue to do so. If this is indicative of their approach to disclosure, it may be very difficult for the Commission to get the answers the victims’ families and the public are all seeking.

1 0

YouTube Video VVVjMGxmdnFpNHMzWk9wNmY1QzQtWkVRLlpjR2hYazVIbzBV

The Underappreciated Significance of the Ongoing Court Battle Over Mass Casualty Information

Adam Rodgers 3 views 4 hours ago

Delay in Mass Casualty Commission Hearings May Mean Behind the Scenes Disclosure Battles

Adam Rodgers 15 views October 14, 2021 12:51 pm

Latest Blogs

Insider Legal Analysis of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission Public Inquiry

With my work representing the Personal Representative to the late Cpl. Lionel Desmond in the Desmond Fatality Inquiry coming to an end, I have an announcement on my next project. The Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission, which will examine the tragic events of April 18-19, 2020 in Portapique and other locations throughout Central Nova Scotia, is set to begin hearings on [...]

The Underappreciated Significance of the Ongoing Court Battle Over Mass Shooting Information

Much of the information that the public may be hoping to see examined during the Mass Casualty Commission hearings is already compiled and available, but is sealed by Court Order. The ongoing battle over the disclosure of this information can give us insight into potential serious difficulties with the upcoming Commission hearings. When the police want to search any private property, [...]

By |October 18, 2021|Categories: Uncategorized|0 Comments

Delay in Mass Casualty Commission Hearings May Mean Disclosure Battles Taking Place

The Mass Casualty Commission has announced a four-month delay to the start of proceedings, citing the volume of disclosure and witness interviews as factors causing, or justifying, the delay. I believe there is more going on, and that it may indicate there are disputes happening that have not been made public. For months now, the Commission has established October 26, 2021 [...]

What the list of Participants can tell us about the Mass Casualty Commission Proceedings

Knowing who is going to be taking part in the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings can give us important insight into what might unfold as those hearings begin later this month. The Commission has released a 22-page decision detailing who may participate, and to what degree each will be involved. The decision also includes funding recommendations for many of the individuals and [...]

By |October 4, 2021|Categories: Uncategorized|Tags: , , |0 Comments

What can the Mass Casualty Commission actually accomplish?

This week, in anticipation of hearings set to start on October 26th in Halifax, staff from the Mass Casualty Commission have been holding open houses near some of the communities most affected, including Debert, Truro, and Millbrook. A comment from Commission investigator, Barbara MacLean, in the CBC article on the open houses caught my attention, and may help us all understand [...]

By |September 28, 2021|Categories: Uncategorized|Tags: , , , |0 Comments

Sources and Reliability of Pre-Inquiry Information

In this post, I want to talk to you about how we know what we already know, and how that may change (and perhaps dramatically change) as we approach the start of the Mass Casualty Commission hearings in a month’s time. The first part of the upcoming Inquiry is going to deal with the question of what happened. In other words, [...]

By |September 26, 2021|Categories: Uncategorized|Tags: , , , , , |0 Comments

A Public Inquiry Can Help Nova Scotians Process Our Collective Trauma

As difficult as it is to see such suffering in others, like many around the time of the tragedy and since, I felt compelled to read the articles and learn what I can about the community of Portapique and the people involved in the horrific killings. There is something deeply human about being a witness the sadness and pain, and to [...]

By |September 13, 2021|Categories: Uncategorized|Tags: , , , |0 Comments
Go to Top