Georgescu v. Niman Mamo LLP, 2025 ONSC 580
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ADRIAN NICOLAE GEORGESCU, Applicant
AND:
NIMAN MAMO LLP, Respondent
BEFORE: Schabas J.
COUNSEL: Adrian Nicolae Georgescu, unrepresented Applicant
Barry Cox and Rolf Piehler, for the Respondent
HEARD: In writing
ENDORSEMENT
1The Respondent has filed a Notice of Motion seeking “[a]n Order sealing certain documents filed in this proceeding pursuant to s.137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43 (“CJA”).
2The Notice states that the grounds for the motion are that it is on consent and that “[t]he documents are subject to solicitor and client privilege in connection with ongoing litigation.” The grounds also refer to s. 137(2) of the CJA and to Rule 30.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg.194 (the “Rules”).
3No evidence or other information is provided with the notice other than a Consent to the draft Order, and the draft Order itself.
4The draft Order goes further than the Notice, stating:
THIS COURT ORDERS that the all materials filed by the parties in the court file in this matter be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record pursuant to s.137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43 and shall not be inspected by any member of the public without leave pursuant to Rule 30.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg.194;
5The material filed fails to meet the basic requirements for a sealing order set out in a long line of cases from the Supreme Court of Canada, revisited most recently in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.
6Documents filed in proceedings are presumptively public. Courts do not simply seal records because parties consent. Strong grounds supported by evidence must be provided to override the common law and constitutional principle of openness. Further, even when the Court is satisfied that public access should be limited, only those specific records, or portions of them, shall be sealed. Any order must be narrowly tailored to ensure that any restriction on openness is as limited as possible.
7In this case, the need to protect privileged documents may well be an appropriate ground for a sealing order. But the moving party must, at the very least, provide evidence of the existence of the privilege and how it is reflected in the content of the documents, why sealing (or redacting) is necessary to protect it, and to specify the particular records, or portions of records, that should be the subject of an order. None of that is provided here. Indeed, the draft Order seeks a sealing order over “all materials filed by the parties”, going far beyond protecting privilege.
8The motion is dismissed.
Paul B. Schabas J.
Date: January 27, 2025