|
Open Court - Practice. R. v. Bernier
In R. v. Bernier (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against an order "dismissing an application for certiorari" relating to charges under the Taxation Act (Ontario).
Here the court considered the effect of not seeking a publication ban at the first level of proceedings:[8] The appellant also applies for an order for a publication ban on his full name at, and following, the hearing of this appeal. He wishes to be identified only by his initials.
[9] Applying the principles in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75, the application is dismissed. The appellant has not established that court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest. We take into account that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for provincial offences. The case proceeded in the courts below without a request by the appellant to initialize his name. We also note that the proceedings in the courts below, in which the appellant’s full name is referenced, are already in the public domain. The certiorari judgment that the appellant seeks to appeal and other rulings related to this case are available online, without initialization.
[10] The application is dismissed. . Thorne v. Good Health Walk-In Clinic
In Thorne v. Good Health Walk-In Clinic (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed an HRC JR, this brought against an HRTO decision where "the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Thorne’s claim that he was discriminated against by Good Health Walk-in-Clinic".
Here the court considered the effect of not seeking an anonymity ban from the first level of proceedings:[1] The applicant has requested a sealing order and publication ban regarding their medical records and identity and has complied with the court’s practice direction before making this request. There is no objection.
[2] We agree that the medical records should be sealed, as they meet the test in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75, at para. 38. That part of the court record shall form a sealed record. The remaining portion of the court documents shall remain in the public record. The anonymity order is not granted. The applicant did not seek that order at the HRTO. The HRTO decision that we are reviewing, including the applicant’s name and a discussion about the nature of the issues, has long been public through the publication of the HRTO decision on CanLII. . Law Society of Ontario v. AA
In Law Society of Ontario v. AA (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an LSO appeal, that against the decision on an LSO-brought JR which upheld a LST Appeal Division decision supporting a lawyer application on good character grounds.
Here the court considers the practical effect of open court orders being reversed, here at any tribunal or court level as the matter progresses upward:[243] While I have concluded that the Divisional Court erred in not conducting a fresh Sherman Estate analysis before making its anonymization order permanent, I would not set aside or vary the Divisional Court’s anonymization and non-publication decision with respect to its record, as to do so would defeat the conclusion set out above that an anonymization and non-publication order is presently warranted.
[244] Therefore, I would decline to set aside the Divisional Court’s decision with respect to anonymization and non-publication. That decision should remain in effect with respect to its record, until and unless it is varied by the Divisional Court. . Law Society of Ontario v. AA
In Law Society of Ontario v. AA (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an LSO appeal, that against the decision on an LSO-brought JR which upheld a LST Appeal Division decision supporting a lawyer application on good character grounds.
Here the court agrees that an open court principle cannot be waived, as it is not an individual party 'right':[196] I also agree with the Law Society that it is doubtful that a party can waive the application of the open court principle. It cannot be said to be the privilege of a particular litigant: see e.g., L.C.F. v. G.F., 2016 ONSC 6732, 406 D.L.R. (4th) 750, at para. 21. Rather, it is a right of the public at large, emanating from the “constitutionally-entrenched right of freedom of expression” and designed to protect a central feature of liberal democracies, being the “public scrutiny” of open courts: Sherman Estate, at paras. 1-2. . Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Ontario Addiction Treatment Centres v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a JR of a refusal to grant a "request for remission of tax under subsection 23(2) of the (SS: federal) Financial Administration Act".
Here the court comments briefly on the 'open court' principle, and makes a useful practice point:[11] The Federal Court erred in closing the whole hearing. The default is that court proceedings are open. Any secrecy must be necessary, justified and minimized: Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 458 D.L.R. (4th) 361; Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522.
[12] In the Federal Court, the submissions containing confidential information were only a small part of the hearing. At most, it should have closed only a small part of its hearing. In fact, in this Court it was possible to keep the hearing open for all but a few minutes. One way to do this is to invite counsel in the course of their public oral submissions on this point, if necessary, to draw the Court’s attention to paragraphs in the confidential memoranda filed and then to make their points orally without disclosing the confidential information.
|
