ºÃÉ«tv

Harris on Thursday reaffirmed that the evidence that led to that decision, including the testimony of two forensic psychiatrists in July, will remain under wraps until the end of Lo's trial.

He said the vast public interest in the case — locally, nationally and internationally — ran the risk of "extensive discussions" about the hearing material if it was in the public domain. 

"To set aside the ban and combine the materials with what has already been stated would increase risk of unfair trial from occurring," he said.

Harris said jurors would run the risk of receiving prejudicial information, including character evidence inadmissible at trial, and social media means that information would be "available forever." 

Harris said the court was balancing "competing rights of freedom of expression and right to fair trial."

He said some "balancing measures" were in place, including allowing publication of the nature of the fitness hearing, the participants and the decision, and he also noted that the ban would lift at the conclusion of the trial of Lo, who attended Thursday's ruling by video, wearing a black sweatshirt. 

"In my view, the benefits of the order assist and do as much as reasonably possible to ensure a fair trial in this highly public matter," Harris said.

"I understand and am troubled about limiting freedom of expression or delaying it for a period of time. That said, when I place all of the balance in recognizing risk, what has been released, the measured release of information and the fact that information will ultimately be available, in my view, the benefits of the ban outweigh the negative effects."

A media consortium that includes ºÃÉ«tvbrought the challenge. 

Consortium lawyer Daniel Coles said he was disappointed by the ruling. 

"Judge Harris had a hard job to do, balancing on the one hand the rights of a fair trial of Mr. Lo and the rights of British Columbians and ºÃÉ«tvs to know what happened in this courthouse and how the judge arrived at the decision that Mr. Lo is fit to stand trial," he said in an interview after the ruling.

"People, rightfully, are going to have questions and concerns about that, and while they don't necessarily have to agree with the decision, it's important that people can understand it."

He said when "sweeping publication bans are maintained, it creates a lacuna where rumours and misinformation can spread."

"It's my clients' view that sunlight is a pretty good disinfectant to those sort of problems," he said.

During arguments last month, Coles argued that lifting the ban would be in the public interest while both Crown lawyer Michaela Donnelly and Lo's defence lawyer Mark Swartz opposed lifting or altering it.

Coles argued it was essential to the public interest and the open-court principle to allow the media to report on the matter, as it was not often possible for members of the public to attend court and coverage "fills that void." 

He also said a trial date had not yet been set, and much of what was covered by the fitness hearing "will be in the rear-view mirror of the public consciousness" by that time.

Swartz rebuffed that argument and said information already known to the public was "very bare bones" and "quite ambiguous."

Donnelly told the court that she agreed with the importance of the open-court principle, but argued the "the need to protect the accused's right to a fair trial outweighs any negative effects on the open-court principle and the benefits of an interim publication ban outweigh the negative effects."

The matter is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 30.

This report by ºÃÉ«tvwas first published Sept. 11, 2025.