The appellant newspaper sought intervenor status to challenge sealing and protective orders made in respect of material filed on a motion for a Mareva injunction against the respondents.
The motion judge dismissed the newspaper's motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant the newspaper intervenor status, failing to give sufficient weight to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
The Court set aside the order, granted the newspaper intervenor status for the limited purpose of challenging the protective order, and remitted the balance of the motion to the Superior Court for a new hearing.