Chisholm v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3378
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JAMAREY CHISHOLM
Plaintiff
– and –
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Defendant
Jamie Shilton, for the Plaintiff
Sarah Pottle and Ryan Ng, for the Defendant/Moving Party
HEARD: June 3, 2026
Leiper J.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR A PUBLICATION BAN
(Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992)
1In this proposed class proceeding involving events at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre, and the ICIT deployment in December of 2023, Ontario seeks an order in the form of a publication ban, which would prohibit:
Broadcasting or publishing the names of inmates referenced in the records filed with the court; and
Requiring that inmates’ faces and specified identifying features be blurred or blocked when broadcasting or publishing videos or photographs filed with the court.
2Ontario has provided notice to the media in accordance with the Court’s practice direction. A representative for the Toronto Star has responded to that notice and does not oppose the making of the requested order.
3The plaintiff, Mr. Chisholm through counsel, has consented in writing to the making of the order requested by Ontario.
DISCUSSION
4Ontario seeks a publication ban in this putative class proceeding to protect the privacy and dignity of Maplehurst detainees whose images may appear in video or photographic evidence submitted as part of the record on certification and/or summary judgment.
5Similar orders were granted by Woolcombe, J. in R. v. Ritchie, 2025 ONSC 3617 and by Good, J. in R. v. Simon, 2025 CarswellOnt 6119 (OCJ). Both judges made orders in those cases requiring that the parties obscure any identifying features, any exposed genitalia, as well as the names and the faces of inmates who were videotaped during the ICIT response at Maplehurst in December of 2023.
6Ontario anticipates that, as in Ritchie and Simon, records filed with this Court will include the names and images of detainees at the Maplehurst Detention Centre.
7Ontario relies on the principles found in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] SCC No. 25, which require that any limits on the open court principle, be made only after the court considers whether (1) that the court openness would pose a serious risk to an important public interest; (2) that the order limiting access is necessary to prevent the serious risk to the identified important public interest because reasonable alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and (3) as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the limiting order must outweigh its negative effects.
8Considering first, whether the open court principle would pose a serious risk to an important public interest, I find that the public interest in personal privacy in this case is at risk. Sherman Estate recognizes that individual privacy may also be a matter of public interest as a whole, depending on the context: Sherman Estate at paras. 47-48. Where information might be disseminated in open court about a core aspect of an individual’s private life, this may amount to an important public interest for the purposes of the test: Sherman Estate, at para. 73.
9I find that there is a public interest in the plaintiff and class members’ ability to pursue access to justice for the conduct of correctional authorities, without the risk of humiliation, psychological damage or distress related to the dissemination of recorded images in states of undress while confined, and to being identified while in such a state. The first criteria is therefore met.
10In relation to the second aspect of the test, the proposed order which would require the obscuring or blurring of identifying features and bans on publication of the names of the individuals connected to the images represents the best alternative to respond to the public interest in the dignity of those individuals. Broader orders would unnecessarily limit the media’s and the public’s interest in understanding what took place at Maplehurst in December of 2023. There is no practical lesser alternative. I am satisfied that the requested order is therefore a proportional and rational response to the public interest at stake.
11Finally in weighing the limit as against the value of the open court principle, I conclude that the proposed order strikes an appropriate balance between the benefits and the limit. It protects the dignity of the individuals involved, while not obscuring the greater context and ability of the public to know the circumstances of the events.
12I make the order sought in accordance with the principles of Sherman Estate. No costs were sought in this motion, and none are ordered.
Leiper J.
Released: June 9, 2026
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00744986-00CP
DATE: 20260609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JAMAREY CHISHOLM
Plaintiff
– and –
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Defendant/Moving Party
REASONS FOR DECISION
Leiper J.
Released: June 9, 2026