Court File and Parties

CITATION: His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario v. Dr. Carlisle, 2025 ONSC 340

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 742/24 JR

DATE: 20250115

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Respondent to Motion/Applicant

AND:

Dr. John Carlisle, Presiding Coroner, Families of James Pigeau, Malcolm Ripley, Raymond Major, Ronald Jenkins, Clayton Bissonnette and Sean Tourand Brightman, Moving Party/Respondents

BEFORE: Justice O’Brien

COUNSEL: A. Iafrate, J. Chan, and H. Somal, for the Applicant J. Im and K. Leung, for the Moving Party/Respondent, Dr. John Carlisle, Presiding Coroner K. Egan, for the Respondents, Families of James Pigeau, Malcolm Ripley, Raymond Major, Ronald Jenkins, Clayton Bissonnette C. Big Canoe and S. Glickman, for the Respondent, Family of Sean Tourand Brightman

HEARD: In-writing

Endorsement

[1] The Respondent Dr. Carlisle, who is the presiding coroner at the inquest underlying this judicial review application, has brought a motion for a sealing order on consent. The Applicant Ministry seeks to judicially review a decision of Dr. Carlisle dismissing a request to limit the scope of the inquest and the admissibility of expert evidence.

[2] Dr. Carlisle seeks a sealing order with respect to (1) the coroner’s inquest brief; and (2) confidential inquest correspondence from counsel for the families of some of the deceased individuals. The correspondence contains draft willsay victim impact statements from family members and exhibits that were shared with counsel.

[3] This court routinely continues sealing orders made by underlying tribunals to protect confidential information on consent. In this case, the coroner has not made an order, but the principle is the same given the underlying statutory scheme, which protects the confidentiality of the documents at this stage of the coroner’s process. The documents in the coroner’s inquest brief are investigative in nature. The coroner’s process keeps them confidential unless and until they become legally relevant, at which point they may become evidence at the hearing.

[4] Rule 4.1 of the Chief Coroner’s Rules requires parties to an inquest to undertake to hold information contained in the inquest brief confidential by completing an Acknowledgement of Party’s Duty and Undertaking of Confidentiality. The Undertaking includes an agreement from the parties not to retain copies of the inquest brief at the conclusion of the inquest or as otherwise ordered by the presiding coroner. Section 51(c) of the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37 allows for an application to this court for a finding of contempt if there is a breach of the confidentiality undertaking.

[5] The confidentiality of the coroner’s brief arises from the broad powers in the Coroners Act, including the authority to seize anything the coroner has reasonable grounds to believe is material to the investigation (eg. ss. 16(2), 40(1)(b)).

[6] It is appropriate for this court to grant a sealing order to continue the confidentiality of the material already protected by the Undertaking. In my view, continuing to protect the confidentiality of the material meets the test in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25. The benefits of sealing the material outweigh the deleterious effects. To allow the inquest brief to become public in this court would undermine the statutory scheme and make public material specifically designed by the coroner’s process to remain private. Any material that subsequently becomes evidence in the coroner’s process will be publicly available.

[7] I also agree that sealing the correspondence with counsel for the families of the deceased individuals meets the test in Sherman Estate. The individuals all died in custody between 2017 and 2021. The purpose of the inquest is to inquire into the circumstances of their deaths. Some of the families have provided victim impact statements, which include the names of minors on the understanding they would be anonymized. The correspondence was provided during the stage of the coroner’s process that was still confidential and was shared by the families for counsel only. Even though this correspondence is not expressly covered by an undertaking or existing sealing order, there is an important public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the coroner’s process. The public will ultimately have access to the information if the witnesses provide evidence at the inquest. In my view, protecting the integrity of the coroner’s confidential process and the family’s expectations outweighs the importance of disclosing the material at the inquest’s investigative stage.

[8] The motion therefore is allowed and an order may be issued in the form provided.

O’Brien J

Date: January 15, 2025