| | CKCO-TV re a News Item (Disappearance) |
 | | I dealt directly with staff at CKCO before the second report was aired, expressing my concerns for privacy of the family, and the potential harm to a family business resulting from more televised coverage. |
 | | There was no evidence available to CKCO at that time (March 2), which would suggest in any manner that [my brother-in-law], in his place of business, put the community at risk, and therefore CKCO was not justified in attending his place of business or publicizing the location of the business. |
 | | It follows that CKCO's identification of the accused by name, address and business association was entirely justified as being in the public interest, despite any pain which may have resulted to the brother-in-law and the members of his family. |
| www.cbsc.ca /english/decisions/decisions/2001/011121.htm (5467 words) |