Whether and in what circumstances a Court authorized to issue a publication ban retains jurisdiction to set aside, vary or clarify its order — Does the doctrine of functus officio apply to orders respecting collateral matters to a proceeding and do publication bans issued in the course of proceedings constitute such collateral matters — Should publication bans be presumptively interpreted as subject to further order of the court, especially when they are issued without notice to affected parties, meaning that the doctrine of functus officio would not apply — Does the doctrine of functus officio apply to decisions made that are not documented and entered — Does the doctrine of functus officio preclude a court from clarifying its order — Whether a Court of Appeal retains jurisdiction to make orders affecting public access to its judicial records of a criminal proceeding after that proceeding has been determined — Whether the right of public access to Court documents and proceedings protected by section 2(b) of the Charter and the common law applies to evidence tendered in judicial proceedings but not admitted as evidence by the Court — Are there minimum constitutional requirements for giving notice to the public and the media before a Court issues a final common law discretionary publication ban — Does the law require a Court granting a common law discretionary publication ban to give reasons identifying the risk to the administration of justice upon which the Court relies, the evidence of that risk and that it considered reasonable alternative measures to mitigate the risk — Does the law require the terms of a common law discretionary publication ban to be set out with sufficiently certainty to permit a reasonable person to ascertain what will constitute unlawful expression — Does the law require the information that is subject to a publication ban to be clearly documented in a manner that is accessible to the public — Does evidence that is tendered and reviewed by a Court but ultimately not admitted form part of the public record that is prima facie open to the public pursuant to section 2(b) of the Charter and the common law open court principle — Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.,  3 S.C.R. 835; R. v. Mentuck,  3 S.C.R. 442, 2001 SCC 76. — granted 05/28/2020 — Supreme Advocacy acted as agents for the Respondent.
Read the lower court decision from the MBCA here.