Glynnis P. Burt

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought orders to have a motion for approval of a third party financing and indemnity agreement heard without notice to the defendant, in camera, and with the documents sealed.

They argued that disclosure would compromise solicitor-client privilege and litigation strategy.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendant is affected by the funding agreement and entitled to notice and participation.

The court further held that third party funding agreements are not privileged, or if they are, the privilege is waived when applying for court approval.

The open court principle requires the funding motion to be heard publicly, though the court provided specific procedural directions for the future motion.

The appellants appealed an order of the motions judge which concluded that there was no real and substantial connection to support jurisdiction and that jurisdiction should be declined on the ground of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge's cogent and persuasive reasons and finding no grounds to interfere with the result.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of an order by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Board of Inquiry requiring her to submit to an extensive medical examination to assess her capacity to practice.

The Board ordered the examination after receiving allegations of narcotic administration discrepancies but provided no reasons for its decision.

The Divisional Court quashed the order, holding that the highly intrusive nature of the examination and the severe consequences of non-compliance triggered a high duty of procedural fairness under the Baker factors, which included a duty to provide reasons demonstrating reasonable and probable grounds for the order.