Public Disclosure (Court Orders): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Privacy]] | [[Category:Privacy]] | ||
==[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c43#BK183 Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43]== | |||
137 (1) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any document filed in a civil proceeding in a court, unless an Act or an order of the court provides otherwise. | |||
:(2) A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record. | |||
:(3) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered. | |||
:(4) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see. | |||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/j5vm8 Cecchin v Lander, 2019 CanLII 131883 (ON SCSM)]== | |||
139. The defence submitted that the posting by the plaintiffs on or about July 15, 2018 of a sign on their own property stating the fact that Mr. Bradbury was convicted of a regulatory offence under the labour legislation supported their claim for invasion of privacy. He was convicted on December 11, 2017 of failure to comply with an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act, and fined $875 (Exhibit 2, Tab 17-C & Exhibit 14). | |||
142. Convictions and sentences imposed by courts of law are events which occur in public and are publicly-available information. The fact that some third party has posted such facts on the internet makes them all the more public. I am unable to accept the defence submission, unsupported by authority, that for Mr. Cecchin to find and post this information constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy. Such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the definition pronounced by Sharpe J.A. in Jones v. Tsige (2012), 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), 108 O.R. (3d) 241 (C.A.), at para. 70. The conviction and sentence cannot be viewed as Mr. Bradbury’s “private affairs or concerns”. Nor would a reasonable person regard the search for or publication of the outcome of legal proceedings as “highly offensive.” | |||
Latest revision as of 01:33, 19 April 2020
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43
137 (1) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any document filed in a civil proceeding in a court, unless an Act or an order of the court provides otherwise.
- (2) A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.
- (3) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered.
- (4) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see.
Cecchin v Lander, 2019 CanLII 131883 (ON SCSM)
139. The defence submitted that the posting by the plaintiffs on or about July 15, 2018 of a sign on their own property stating the fact that Mr. Bradbury was convicted of a regulatory offence under the labour legislation supported their claim for invasion of privacy. He was convicted on December 11, 2017 of failure to comply with an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act, and fined $875 (Exhibit 2, Tab 17-C & Exhibit 14).
142. Convictions and sentences imposed by courts of law are events which occur in public and are publicly-available information. The fact that some third party has posted such facts on the internet makes them all the more public. I am unable to accept the defence submission, unsupported by authority, that for Mr. Cecchin to find and post this information constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy. Such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the definition pronounced by Sharpe J.A. in Jones v. Tsige (2012), 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), 108 O.R. (3d) 241 (C.A.), at para. 70. The conviction and sentence cannot be viewed as Mr. Bradbury’s “private affairs or concerns”. Nor would a reasonable person regard the search for or publication of the outcome of legal proceedings as “highly offensive.”
