Miriam Martin

The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused leave to appeal a sealing order issued by a CCAA supervising judge in the Laurentian University insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties, including faculty unions, sought access to confidential documents (letters between Laurentian and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities) that were sealed to protect restructuring efforts.

The Court applied the Sierra Club test for sealing orders and the four-factor test for leave to appeal in CCAA cases, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious, would unduly hinder the time-sensitive restructuring, and was not of sufficient significance to the action.

The court emphasized deference to the supervising judge's discretion in complex CCAA matters.

The respondent mother brought a motion to dispense with service on the father and to remove him as a party in child protection proceedings, citing a history of abuse and potential harm.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the father as a party, finding no jurisdiction under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 or the Family Law Rules to do so based on the mother's fears.

The court emphasized the father's fundamental right to participate and the children's potential for paternal kin placement.

While the motion to dispense with service on the basis of harm was abandoned due to lack of jurisdiction, the court ordered temporary protective measures for the mother and children, including a restraining order against the father and substituted service of limited documents via his Facebook account, pending his engagement in the proceedings.

The accused, charged with robbery, forcible confinement, and attempted murder of an elderly victim, brought a Corbett application to prevent the Crown from cross-examining him on his prior convictions for a triple murder.

The accused argued the evidence was highly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused's credibility regarding his intent was the central issue in the trial, and the probative value of the prior convictions outweighed the potential prejudice, which could be addressed through a proper jury instruction.