Canada Case Law

Kirby v. Woods

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Applying Sherman Estate together with s.70 CLRA and s.166(c) IRPA, the motion judge found a serious risk to the important public interest of protecting a vulnerable child’s sensitive information and physical safety; less intrusive measures would not suffice to protect IRPA-protected materials, and proportionality favoured anonymization, a publication ban on identifying information, and sealing of IRPA-created documents with tightly limited access.

Source excerpt

• Hague convention return
• Refugee status confidentiality
• Open court principle
• Publication ban
• Anonymization/initialization
• Sealing orders

Read case analysis

Miller v. Miller

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The motion was dismissed because the open court principle presumes publication and the petitioner failed to provide any evidentiary foundation demonstrating a real and substantial risk that would justify restricting publication under Rule 59.60; prior authority (Coltsfoot) requires evidence assessed on the balance of probabilities to support confidentiality orders, which was absent here, and the parties proceeded to a public hearing aware of potential publicity.

Source excerpt

• Open court principle
• Anonymity in judgments
• Publication bans
• Judicial discretion
• Evidentiary standard for confidentiality orders

Read case analysis

Keremelevski v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to vary a chambers order, finding no basis to disturb the prior ruling and upholding a filing restriction against the appellant.

• Leave to appeal
• Indigent status
• Restrictions on litigant filings (pre-filing relief)
• Vexatious litigation
• Stay of proceedings
• Leave-to-appeal

Read case analysis

Ivandaeva Total Image Salon Inc. v. Hlembizky (c.o.b.) Dermocare

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the appellants were not 'persons affected' within the meaning of rule 37.14(1) because the sealing order did not directly affect their proprietary or economic interests; therefore they lacked standing to seek to set aside the sealing order and the motion judge correctly dismissed their motion and ordered compliance with the sealing order.

Source excerpt

• Sealing of court files
• Standing (locus standi) under rule 37.14(1)
• Motions without notice
• Notice requirements (rule 37.07(1))
• Compliance orders
• Discovery and production

Read case analysis

Croll v. Brown

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed review and leave applications brought by Carole Ann Brown and affirmed lower court orders, including filing restrictions and a vexatious litigant order.

• Leave to appeal
• Indigent status
• Vexatious litigant
• Restrictions on filing process
• Committee authority
• Judicial review of interlocutory orders

Read case analysis