Cassels & Graydon

The estates of a prominent couple who were found dead in unexplained circumstances sought sealing orders over probate files to protect the privacy and physical safety of beneficiaries and trustees.

The application judge granted the sealing orders, finding the privacy and safety interests outweighed the open court principle, but the Court of Appeal unanimously set them aside.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest.

The Court clarified that privacy can constitute an important public interest for purposes of the Sierra Club test only insofar as it protects dignity — that is, information so sensitive it strikes at the biographical core of an individual — and found the probate file contents did not meet that standard.

The Court also held that the alleged risk of physical harm to beneficiaries and trustees was speculative rather than a proper inference from the record.

In an Internet defamation dispute, the appellants sought a stay of an Ontario libel action in favour of an Israeli forum.

The Court held that tort situs remains a presumptive connecting factor for jurisdiction simpliciter in online defamation, while requiring robust forum non conveniens review.

The majority found material errors in the forum non conveniens analysis and concluded Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was allowed and the stay motion was granted.

The appellant sought an oppression remedy under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act after being removed from the corporation’s share register.

The appeal turned on whether he had a reasonable expectation of continued shareholder treatment and whether non-compliance with statutory transfer formalities, in these facts, constituted oppressive conduct.

The majority held the trial findings established that the appellant had asked to cease being a shareholder, so the alleged expectation was not reasonable and the oppression claim failed.

The Court confirmed that statutory non-compliance alone does not automatically establish oppression absent frustration of reasonable expectations.

The appellant sought to block disclosure of portions of drug submission records requested under federal access to information legislation.

The Court clarified notice obligations, severance duties, and the evidentiary burden on a third party resisting disclosure under statutory exemptions for trade secrets, confidential information, and probable harm.

The majority held that the third party had not proven that the remaining redacted material met the claimed exemptions on the record.

The Court affirmed that appellate intervention was available where the reviewing judge did not adequately apply governing legal principles to the evidence.

The appeals were dismissed and disclosure orders stood, subject to redactions already accepted.