°µÍø½ûÇø

Adam Kai-Ji Lo, who attended court by video on Tuesday wearing a blue sweatshirt, faces 11 second-degree murder charges over the ramming attack in April, when an SUV drove through a crowd at a Filipino community festival. 

Lawyer Daniel Coles, representing the consortium that includes °µÍø½ûÇø, argued that lifting the ban would be in the public interest while Crown lawyer Michaela Donnelly and Lo's defence lawyer Mark Swartz opposed lifting or altering the ban.

Coles told the court that Vancouver now "wears the crown of the deadliest vehicle attack in Canadian history" and the attack has garnered significant public attention.

He said 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 argued that the court must find a balance between Lo's right to a fair trial with court openness and freedom of expression.

"A proper publication ban — one that can withstand Charter scrutiny — is done with a scalpel and not a hatchet," he told the court Tuesday. "It's minimally invasive."

Coles argued that because a trial date has not yet been set, much of what is covered by the fitness hearing "will be in the rear-view mirror of the public consciousness" by that time.

He also said several details are already known by the public, including that Lo had "significant interactions with police in connection with mental health issues."

"Any potential juror would know that," he told the judge, adding that public is also aware of his family history, including the murder of his brother and his mother's attempted suicide.

Swartz rebuffed that argument, saying publicly known information is "very bare bones" and "quite ambiguous."

He said the publication ban safeguards Lo's right to a fair trial, and there is risk that publishing details of the fitness hearing could taint a jury.

He also argued that there is "real risk" that details heard in the fitness hearing may include evidence ruled inadmissible in a criminal trial. 

Donnelly agreed.

"There is a real live question about what will be admissible at trial as opposed to what evidence is admissible at a fitness hearing," she said.

She told the court she agreed with the importance of the open-court principle, but argued the ban "doesn't bar publication forever. It simply delays it."

"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," she concluded. 

Last month, Lo appeared in court as forensic psychiatrists Dr. Robert Lacroix and Dr. Rakesh Lamba testified as expert witnesses in the fitness hearing.

Their evidence cannot be described due to the ban, but their names and roles are allowed to be reported.

Lo is expected back in court when the fitness hearing continues on Friday.

This report by °µÍø½ûÇø was first published Aug. 19, 2025.