The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision affirming a Master's order that granted a confidentiality order including a 'for counsel's eyes only' provision.
The appellant argued there were conflicting decisions on whether a court must scrutinize specific examples of materials before granting such an order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sierra Club resolved any conflict, establishing that actual documents need not be scrutinized if an adequate description of the class of documents is provided.
The court also noted the importance of comparable protective orders in parallel Federal Court litigation.
