2 total
No sealing order where existing self-incrimination and privacy protections were sufficient.
In a civil fraud action accompanied by a pending Mareva injunction motion and related criminal proceedings, certain defendants sought confidentiality or sealing orders over their proposed affidavit and cross-examination evidence on the basis of self-incrimination concerns.
The court held that, as statutorily compellable witnesses in the civil proceeding, they were already protected by the principle against self-incrimination and no further protective order was required.
The plaintiff's cross-motion for a confidentiality order to permit filing of redacted motion materials was also dismissed because the open court principle was not displaced under the sealing-order test.
The court further held that disclosure of personal information in the motion record fell within the PIPEDA exception for compliance with rules of court relating to the production of records.
Section 803 of the Criminal Code permits adjourning a matter to multiple fixed dates without losing jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari.
The trial court had adjourned the matter to two dates: a pre-trial date and a confirmation date.
The matter was not spoken to on the first date, and the appellant argued this resulted in a loss of jurisdiction over the offence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 803 of the Criminal Code permits remands to more than one date, and the failure to place the matter on the docket on the first date did not result in a loss of jurisdiction.
