On a motion for a sealing order in the context of a municipal enforcement application concerning ride-sharing services, the moving parties sought to keep an insurance policy confidential under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.
Applying the Sierra Club test, the court held the evidence did not establish a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest capable of being expressed as a public interest in confidentiality.
The absence of evidence from the insurer and the nature of the document as an insurance policy undermined the claim of confidentiality and competitive harm.
The court further indicated that, even if the first branch had been met, the salutary effects would not outweigh the deleterious effects given the open court principle and the public interest nature of the underlying proceeding.
The motion was dismissed.