OTTAWA — An Ontario court has struck down sections of Canada's secrecy law in throwing out RCMP warrants used to search a reporter's home.

The Ontario Superior Court judgment quashes three sections of the so-called leakage provisions of the Security of Information Act, passed following the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

The provisions were used by the RCMP on frosty morning in January 2004 to search the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill -- an attempt by the Mounties to find the source of leaked information about the Maher Arar affair.

The sections in question were drawn directly from the decades-old Official Secrets Act, long criticized as archaic and poorly drafted. They dealt with communicating, receiving and failing to return official information.

In her ruling Thursday, Justice Lynn Ratushny said all three provisions are unconstitutionally vague and overly broad, violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of fundamental justice.

Ratushny also said the sections contravened the constitutional right of press freedom.

"They have not been well-tailored to suit their purpose ... they arbitrarily and unfairly and with a blunt club of criminal sanction restrict freedom of expression, including freedom of the press,'' the ruling said.

David Paciocco, a lawyer for O'Neill, said the judgment was "a powerful reaffirmation of how central the role of the media is in protecting democracy.''

"This is also an ultimate vindication of Ms. O'Neill.''

Squads of Mounties combed through O'Neill's home and newspaper office in search of information related to Arar, an Ottawa telecommunications engineer.

Arar, who had come under RCMP scrutiny during an anti-terrorism probe, was detained at a New York airport in 2002.

He spent months behind bars in Damascus after being deported to his Syrian birthplace by U.S. authorities.

While imprisoned, Arar was tortured into giving false confessions about links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. He returned to Canada in October 2003.

In the weeks following publication of a Nov. 8, 2003, story by O'Neill, the RCMP launched a criminal probe of an information leak.

The story cited a "security source'' and a document offering details of what Arar allegedly told his Syrian captors.

The Mounties believe O'Neill published her article "based on the receipt of secret classified information.''

In court, O'Neill's legal team successfully argued the Security of Information Act provisions used to obtain the warrants are unconstitutional.

Ratushny's ruling effectively renders the warrants null and void.

The court also ordered the return of O'Neill's seized papers, notebooks, contact listings and computer files.

Crown counsel Robert Frater said there was no immediate decision on whether to appeal. "It's a long judgment and we're going to have to carefully look at it.''

The three provisions of the Security of Information Act struck down Thursday by the Ontario Superior Court:

 4. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act who, having in his possession or control any secret official code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information that relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in a prohibited place, or that has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act, or that has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under Her Majesty, or that he has obtained or to which he has had access while subject to the Code of Service Discipline within the meaning of the National Defence Act or owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under Her Majesty, or as a person who holds or has held a contract made on behalf of Her Majesty, or a contract the performance of which in whole or in part is carried out in a prohibited place, or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract,

(a) communicates the code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information to any person, other than a person to whom he is authorized to communicate with, or a person to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty to communicate it ...

4. (3) Every person who receives any secret official code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, knowing, or having reasonable ground to believe, at the time he receives it, that the code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information is communicated to him in contravention of this Act, is guilty of an offence under this Act, unless he proves that the communication to him of the code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information was contrary to his desire.

4. (4) (b) Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act who: allows any other person to have possession of any official document issued for his use alone, or communicates any secret official code word or password so issued, or, without lawful authority or excuse, has in his possession any official document or secret official code word or password issued for the use of a person other than himself, or on obtaining possession of any official document by finding or otherwise, neglects or fails to restore it to the person or authority by whom or for whose use it was issued, or to a police constable.