3. If the formation of the court is completed pursuant to paragraph 2 after the hearing, the oral procedure shall be reopened.

3. The preceding paragraph shall not apply where a request for a hearing, stating reasons, has been submitted by an interested person referred to in Article 23 of the Statute who did not participate in the written part of the procedure.

3. The preceding paragraph shall not apply where a request for a hearing, stating reasons, has been submitted by an interested person referred to in Article 23 of the Statute who did not participate in the written part of the procedure.

Justice Lutfy concluded in this case that where courts hold a disclosure hearing under section 38.01 to 38.16 of the CEA (more commonly referred to in the case law as “a section 38 application” or as “a section 38 non-disclosure proceeding”) to determine whether specified information relates to or is potentially injurious to international relations, national defence or national security and therefore must be kept confidential in separate court or administrative proceedings, the presumption of confidentiality should be restricted to situations where information i ...[+++]s presented ex parte.

Some of these changes appear designed to respond to the decision of the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada. In that decision, Justice Lutfy, then Chief Justice of the Federal Court, concluded that in circumstances where courts are holding a non-disclosure hearing under section 38.01 of the CEA and the following sections to determine whether specified information relates to or is potentially injurious to international relations, national defence or national security and therefore must be kept secret in separate court or administrative proceedings, the presumption of confidentiality applicable at the non-disc ...[+++]losure hearing should be restricted to situations where information is presented ex parte.