In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.
Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.
The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.
However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.
The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.
