Canada Case Law

CAE Inc. v. The King

Court

Tax Court of Canada

On the uncontradicted evidence the court found the nine listed exhibits had been treated as confidential and that disclosure could cause serious commercial harm; the implied undertaking rule alone was insufficient to protect against third-party access if the documents or transcripts were filed in the court record; the Tax Court has jurisdiction under Rules s.4 and its implied jurisdiction to grant interim sealing orders at the discovery stage; accordingly the Court ordered the specified documents (AS-1 to AS-9) be treated as confidential and sealed if filed, limited access to specified person…

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality order
• Sealing order
• Implied undertaking rule
• Open court principle
• Discovery
• Timetable amendment

Read case analysis

Zawilski v. Cogeco Connexion Inc.

Court

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order under s.52(1)(c) CHRA applying the Sherman (Estate) three‑part test: it found the documents were contractually protected and treated as confidential, disclosure would pose a real and substantial risk to important public interests (protection of confidential contractual information and competitive market integrity), no reasonable alternatives would prevent that risk, and the benefits of sealing outweigh the harm to open court values. Therefore the specified documents are sealed and subject to confidentiality conditions.

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality order
• Open court principle
• Section 52 chra
• Duty to accommodate
• Described video accessibility
• Non‑disclosure agreements

Read case analysis

Nuchatlaht v. British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed in an Aboriginal title case. The court held the Province could be relieved of the implied undertaking of confidentiality on the proper public-interest test.

• Implied undertaking of confidentiality
• Relief from implied undertaking
• Public interest balancing
• Document production and privilege
• Traditional use studies
• Case management

Read case analysis

Club Exploria, LLC v. Moore

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court enforced a U.S. letter rogatory, ordering Joshua Grant’s deposition in British Columbia and production of specified documents, subject to confidentiality protections.

• Letters rogatory
• Examination for discovery
• Production of documents
• Comity
• Privilege against self-incrimination
• Solicitor-client privilege

Read case analysis

Hudson's Bay Company - Confidentiality Order

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal granted the requested confidentiality order on consent: it defined categories of Protected Records (competitively sensitive pricing, financial, contractual, strategic and internal documents), established two levels of confidentiality (Level A and Level B) with specified classes of persons permitted access, set procedures for marking, challenging, re-designation, provision of redacted public versions, disclosure exceptions, retention/destruction on termination, and confirmed Tribunal jurisdiction to enforce and vary the order.

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality order
• Protected records
• Document designation and disclosure protocols
• Tribunal jurisdiction and procedural directions

Read case analysis

Sandhu v. Bhullar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interim family-law orders granted for a child-related dispute, including a s. 211 report, limited care-book communications, financial disclosure, jewellery return, and confidentiality protections.

• Parenting time
• Section 211 custody and access report
• Section 225 communications book
• Disclosure of corporate and personal financial records
• Confidentiality orders
• Parenting coordinator

Read case analysis

Direct Energy - Confidentiality Order

Court

Competition Tribunal

Because disclosure of specified categories of information (pricing, capacity, contracts, financials, business plans, internal studies and other competitively sensitive material) would cause specific and direct harm, and because the parties and intervenor consented to a narrowly tailored two-level confidentiality regime with designated recipients and undertakings, the Tribunal granted the confidentiality order under s.79 to permit controlled disclosure while preserving Tribunal oversight and remedies for breach.

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality order
• Protected documents
• Document production
• Access restrictions
• Intervenor rights
• Independent experts

Read case analysis

Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed a limited disclosure process for NAC files, but denied amendment, Article 12, production and funding requests as premature or unsupported.

• Settlement agreement interpretation
• Common experience payment eligibility
• Article 12 additions to schedule f
• Amendment of approval orders
• Production/disclosure of class files
• Funding of litigation

Read case analysis

Pearlman v. Lubin

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a patient’s tort action against his family doctor, finding no breach of confidence, defamation, deceit, or medical negligence in an ICBC report.

• Breach of confidentiality
• Defamation/libel
• Fraud/deceit
• Standard of care (medical)
• Statutory reporting obligations to insurer
• Causation of procedural prejudice

Read case analysis

AON Reed Stenhouse v. Radziwill et al.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the defendants’ broad disclosure request as a fishing expedition, but ordered unredacted production of employment-offer documents subject to confidentiality undertakings.

• Document disclosure
• Discovery limits and fishing expeditions
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Inducing breach of contract
• Accounting of profits
• Justification (truth) defence in defamation

Read case analysis