Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 5909/16 DATE: 2023/06/14 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: SHANNON ENGLAND, GAVIN ENGLAND-PRESTON (infant under the age of 18 years, by his Litigation Guardian, Shannon England), TYSON ENGLAND-PRESTON (infant under the age of 18 years, by his Litigation Guardian, Shannon England), TOM PRESTON and INGEBORG BIEDER Plaintiffs

AND:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION and MILLER PAVING LIMITED Defendants

BEFORE: M.G. Ellies R.S.J.

COUNSEL: James Wallbridge, for the Plaintiffs Barry Cox, for the Defendant, Minister of Transportation Chenyang Li, for the Defendant, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission Eric W.D. Boate, for the Defendant, Miller Paving Limited

HEARD: In chambers

Endorsement

[1] I have reviewed the settlement materials in chambers. I have approved the settlement and signed the draft order, but with one significant change. I have deleted the clause in the order regarding service and sealing of the supplemental affidavits of Mr. Wallbridge and his clients.

[2] Transparency is one of the foundational principles upon which the Canadian justice system is built. That principle is reflected in provisions such as s. 137 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which provides that court documents are presumptively open to the public. The Open Court Principle is not one that can easily be displaced.

[3] There appear to be two reasons advanced within the affidavits for the request that they be sealed. One relates to the merits of the plaintiffs' case. The other relates to the terms of Mr. Wallbridge's retainer. While I can understand the need to keep confidential the potential weaknesses in the plaintiffs' case prior to approval of the settlement, I can see no reason to keep the affidavits sealed now that the settlement has been approved. As for the terms of Mr. Wallbridge's retainer, based on the many reported cases in which the terms of such agreements are openly reported, I can see no basis for an order under s. 137.

[4] The affidavits will remain sealed for 60 days. If Mr. Wallbridge wishes an order that they remain sealed beyond that date, he must serve and file an application within 30 days, addressing the factors referred to in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25. The application must be served not only on the other parties to the action, but also upon the media. A list of contact information for representatives of the media can be provided to Mr. Wallbridge upon request. The motion should be made returnable on a short motions date in Haileybury, at which time a date and a timetable can be set for a long motion.

M.G. Ellies R.S.J. Date: June 14, 2023