Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court granted a temporary sealing order over James Heller’s Affidavit #2, finding a serious privacy risk for a former employee and rejecting redactions as sufficient.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously was dismissed. The court held that open-court principles, her vexatious litigant history, and the nature of the defamation claim outweighed any privacy concerns.
The court granted the Crown's motion because protecting juror anonymity was necessary and the proposed sealing/redaction order was narrowly tailored to minimally impair the open court principle; the salutary effects outweighed the limited deleterious impact, and procedural safeguards (notice and case management approval for future filings) were imposed to preserve the order's integrity.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal seeking broader sealing and publication ban orders in civil forfeiture proceedings, upholding redaction of addresses but not names.
The judge's September 26 email is part of the record; no privilege attached to the in‑court comments; the judge's emphatic pre‑argument conclusions (predetermination on one count) and prior credibility/character findings, together with his attempt to expunge the remarks and restrict access to recordings, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; convictions set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The court held that the plaintiff could not seek a sealing order first; he had to bring a preliminary application for leave to use privileged documents in support of a release application.
There is no clear statutory authority extending s.517 to s.680 reviews and, given the open court principle and the prior public availability of the bail judge's reasons, this Court must publish its reasons in full; editing reasons would be unintelligible and create undesirable precedent, so the Registrar was ordered to repost the full reasons.
Source excerpt
The Registrar dismissed the objection and held that when a s.163(1) trustee examination is conducted in Court using public resources before the Registrar, the presumptive position is openness and interested creditors may attend as bystanders (not participating), absent evidence of prejudice, improper motive, or binding authority to the contrary; the Registrar has discretion to control attendance and impose limits (including for COVID‑19 protocols).
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia ordered this criminal appeal heard in camera because it involved privileged and confidential information that could not be partially separated for open hearing.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted a media application to release Exhibit 159, a note written by the accused, finding disclosure was in the public interest.
Explore more
