Public Disclosure (Court Orders): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:(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. | :(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. | :(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). | |||
Revision as of 01:30, 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).
