Simon's Legal Resources

Open Court - Sherman Test (4)

. Malekzadeh v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

In Malekzadeh v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court considered two applicant motions brought within an HRTO JR, these seeking to remove opposing counsel for conflict and for open court measures.

With respect to the open court issues the court states:

[30] .... I am not satisfied that the moving party has established that the risk to privacy in this case is sufficiently serious to overcome the strong presumption of openness. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Sherman Estate, open court proceedings, by their very nature, can be a source of embarrassment and discomfort, but these intrusions on privacy are generally seen as of insufficient importance to overcome the strong presumption of openness. See Sherman Estate at paras. 2, 56. The moving party has not demonstrated that the dissemination of the information in this case would constitute an affront to her dignity, or that “the information that would be disseminated in this case as a result of court openness is sufficiently sensitive such that openness can be shown to meaningfully strike at the individual’s biographical core in a manner that threatens their integrity.” See Sherman Estate at paras. 33-35, 85.

[31] Accordingly, I would dismiss the moving party’s motion for an order anonymizing her name in the title of proceeding and an order that her private information not be made public.