|
Open Court - Statutory - Administrative. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario v. Dr. Carlisle [coroners/questionable]
In His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario v. Dr. Carlisle (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court grants a coroner's (apparently statutory?) 'open court' sealing order motion, although the statutory basis is left unclear:[2] Dr. Carlisle seeks a sealing order with respect to (1) the coroner’s inquest brief; and (2) confidential inquest correspondence from counsel for the families of some of the deceased individuals. The correspondence contains draft willsay victim impact statements from family members and exhibits that were shared with counsel.
[3] This court routinely continues sealing orders made by underlying tribunals to protect confidential information on consent. In this case, the coroner has not made an order, but the principle is the same given the underlying statutory scheme, which protects the confidentiality of the documents at this stage of the coroner’s process. The documents in the coroner’s inquest brief are investigative in nature. The coroner’s process keeps them confidential unless and until they become legally relevant, at which point they may become evidence at the hearing.
[4] Rule 4.1 of the Chief Coroner’s Rules requires parties to an inquest to undertake to hold information contained in the inquest brief confidential by completing an Acknowledgement of Party’s Duty and Undertaking of Confidentiality. The Undertaking includes an agreement from the parties not to retain copies of the inquest brief at the conclusion of the inquest or as otherwise ordered by the presiding coroner. Section 51(c) of the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37 allows for an application to this court for a finding of contempt if there is a breach of the confidentiality undertaking.
[5] The confidentiality of the coroner’s brief arises from the broad powers in the Coroners Act, including the authority to seize anything the coroner has reasonable grounds to believe is material to the investigation (eg. ss. 16(2), 40(1)(b)).
[6] It is appropriate for this court to grant a sealing order to continue the confidentiality of the material already protected by the Undertaking. In my view, continuing to protect the confidentiality of the material meets the test in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25. The benefits of sealing the material outweigh the deleterious effects. To allow the inquest brief to become public in this court would undermine the statutory scheme and make public material specifically designed by the coroner’s process to remain private. Any material that subsequently becomes evidence in the coroner’s process will be publicly available.
[7] I also agree that sealing the correspondence with counsel for the families of the deceased individuals meets the test in Sherman Estate. The individuals all died in custody between 2017 and 2021. The purpose of the inquest is to inquire into the circumstances of their deaths. Some of the families have provided victim impact statements, which include the names of minors on the understanding they would be anonymized. The correspondence was provided during the stage of the coroner’s process that was still confidential and was shared by the families for counsel only. Even though this correspondence is not expressly covered by an undertaking or existing sealing order, there is an important public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the coroner’s process. The public will ultimately have access to the information if the witnesses provide evidence at the inquest. In my view, protecting the integrity of the coroner’s confidential process and the family’s expectations outweighs the importance of disclosing the material at the inquest’s investigative stage. . Okafor v. Ontario College of Teachers
In Okafor v. Ontario College of Teachers (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed a motion on consent to temporarily extend a "publication ban ordered by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers" [under s.32.1(1,3), Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996]:[6] Section 32.1(3) of the Act requires that, “no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.”. Therefore, the Discipline Committee ordered a publication ban pursuant to s. 32.1(3), which was a mandatory order the Discipline Committee was required to make.
[7] Section 32.1(1) of the Act further permits the Discipline Committee to make an order, “that the public, including members of the College, be excluded from a meeting, the Committee may make orders it considers necessary to prevent the public disclosure of matters disclosed during the disciplinary stage complaint resolution process, including orders banning the publication or broadcasting of those matters.”. Student 1 was under 18 years old at the time of the events but was over 18 at the time of the hearing and therefore the mandatory s. 32.1(3) publication ban did not apply to him.
[8] The College requested, and the parties agreed, to ask the Discipline Committee to make a further order. The Discipline Committee thus additionally ordered a publication ban pursuant to s. 32.1(1) of the Act, whereby no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1
[9] The publication ban under s. 32(1) is an extension of the rationale of the mandatory nature of the publication ban required by s. 32.1(3) – where vulnerable persons, and students, and victims are implicated in a situation by no fault or reason of their own, their identities and personal information ought to be protected from publication.
[10] This Court has routinely granted similar requests for the extension of publication bans (see, e.g. Ontario College of Teachers v Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453 (Div Ct); Grimstead v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2023 ONSC 1801 (Div Ct); Caine v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2022 ONSC 2592 (Div Ct)).
[11] In Cann v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2022 ONSC 6988 (Div Ct.) a circumstance in which the request for extension of the ban was made at the hearing, the Court cited the nature and purpose of such a request as the basis for which no formal motion be required:“The court granted an order extending the publication ban ordered by the Panel. In the circumstances, given the nature of the allegations in this case and the mandatory nature of s. 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the court did not require a formal motion record for a publication ban to be brought”. [12] The same rationale applies to this case.
[13] The identity of the student witness should continue to be anonymized by referring to him as Student 1.
|
