Open Courts, Privacy and Equality in a Digital Era: The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2021 Open Court Jurisprudence

Authors

Amy Salyzyn, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Samuel Singer, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Abstract

This paper analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2021 open court jurisprudence: Sherman Estate v. Donovan, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba and MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel. At the heart of our analysis is the exploration of several more latent dynamics found in the cases which, in our view, pose foundational and continuing challenges for open court jurisprudence. Underlying MediaQMI are concerns about the appropriate level of party control over court records. CBC v. Manitoba invites questions about who constitutes the “media” with the increasing democratization and digitalization of information exchange. In Sherman, the concept of privacy — rooted in the section 8 notion of a “biographical core” — encounters tensions with the “default to openness” and potential fluidity that characterizes the open court context. We also identify two broader themes. First, we raise questions as to whether the Court’s open court jurisprudence is “fit for purpose” in an increasingly digitized world of court operations and information exchange. Second, notwithstanding a body of scholarship advocating for equality-infused concepts of privacy, we contend that the Court does not suffıciently address how decisions about court record control, media access and privacy protections are likely to have a disproportionate impact on marginalized people, particularly in an increasingly digital context. We conclude that ultimately, the Court will need to squarely address the challenges posed by digitization and equality-related dynamics in its open court jurisprudence.

Citation Information

Salyzyn, Amy and Singer, Samuel. "Open Courts, Privacy and Equality in a Digital Era: The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2021 Open Court Jurisprudence." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 108. (2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1441
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol108/iss1/10

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Sherman"].

2 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "CBC v. Manitoba"].

3 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 3 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "MediaQMI"].

4 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 35 (S.C.C.).

5 As noted at first instance, "[t]he celebrity and wealth of the victims and the circumstances of their death generated intense publicity": Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

6 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at paras. 6-7 (Ont. S.C.J.).

7 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at para. 10 (Ont. S.C.J.).

8 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at paras. 16-19 (Ont. S.C.J.).

9 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at para. 18 (Ont. S.C.J.).

10 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at para. 19 (Ont. S.C.J.).

11 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at paras. 20-21 (Ont. S.C.J.).

https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CE90124D

12 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at paras. 23-34 (Ont. S.C.J.).

13 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Sherman Estate, [2018] O.J. No. 4121, 2018 ONSC 4706 at para. 10 (Ont. S.C.J.).

14 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 6 (S.C.C.).

15 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 32 (S.C.C.).

16 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at paras. 2, 84 (S.C.C.).

17 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 32 (S.C.C.).

18 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 34 (S.C.C.).

19 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at paras. 35, 77 (S.C.C.).

20 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 77 (S.C.C.).

21 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 91 (S.C.C.).

22 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 91 (S.C.C.).

23 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 99 (S.C.C.).

24 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 107 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.32989/rel.2021.25.1.107

25 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 (S.C.C.). The decision was released on September 24, 2021.

26 R. v. Ostrowski, [2018] M.J. No. 306, 2018 MBCA 125 (Man. C.A.). https://doi.org/10.1109/AI4I.2018.8665678

27 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 12 (S.C.C.).

28 R. v. Ostrowski, [2018] M.J. No. 306, 2018 MBCA 125 at paras. 2-4 (Man. C.A.). https://doi.org/10.1109/AI4I.2018.8665678

29 R. v. Ostrowski, [2018] M.J. No. 306, 2018 MBCA 125 at paras. 77-79 (Man. C.A.).

30 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 14 (S.C.C.).

31 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at paras. 14-16 (S.C.C.).

32 R. v. Ostrowski, [2018] M.J. No. 306, 2018 MBCA 125 at para. 82 (Man. C.A.). https://doi.org/10.1109/AI4I.2018.8665678

33 R. v. Ostrowski, [2018] M.J. No. 306, 2018 MBCA 125 at para. 82 (Man. C.A.). https://doi.org/10.1109/AI4I.2018.8665678

34 R. v. Ostrowski, [2019] M.J. No. 334, 2019 MBCA 122 (Man. C.A.).

35 R. v. Ostrowski, [2019] M.J. No. 334, 2019 MBCA 122 at para. 13 (Man. C.A.).

36 R. v. Ostrowski, [2019] M.J. No. 334, 2019 MBCA 122 at paras. 22-23 (Man. C.A.).

37 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 (S.C.C.).

38 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 31 (S.C.C.).

39 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 36 (S.C.C.).

40 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 39 (S.C.C.).

41 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 41 (S.C.C.).

42 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at paras. 44-57 (S.C.C.).

43 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 55 (S.C.C.).

44 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 44 (S.C.C.).

45 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 46 (S.C.C.).

46 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 47 (S.C.C.).

47 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 47 (S.C.C.).

48 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 48 (S.C.C.).

49 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 73 (S.C.C.).

50 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 122 (S.C.C.).

51 Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.01.

52 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 3 (S.C.C.).

53 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 13 (S.C.C.).

54 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

55 Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.01, art. 11.

56 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 5 (S.C.C.).

57 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 5 (S.C.C.).

58 Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.01, art. 108.

59 Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal c. K. (M.), [2017] J.Q. no 14219, 2017 QCCS 4691 (Que. S.C.).

60 Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal c. K. (M.), [2017] J.Q. no 14219, 2017 QCCS 4691 at para. 9 (Que. S.C.).

61 Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal c. K. (M.), [2017] J.Q. no 14219, 2017 QCCS 4691 at para. 133 (Que. S.C.).

62 Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal c. K. (M.), [2017] J.Q. no 14219, 2017 QCCS 4691 at paras. 137-138 (Que. S.C.).

63 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 62 (S.C.C.).

64 MédiaQMI inc. c. K. (M.), [2019] J.Q. no 3707, 2019 QCCA 814 (Que. C.A.).

65 MédiaQMI inc. c. K. (M.), [2019] J.Q. no 3707, 2019 QCCA 814 at paras. 21-33 (Que. C.A.).

66 MédiaQMI inc. c. K. (M.), [2019] J.Q. no 3707, 2019 QCCA 814 at para. 42 (Que. C.A.).

67 MédiaQMI inc. c. K. (M.), [2019] J.Q. no 3707, 2019 QCCA 814 at paras. 37, 42 (Que. C.A.).

68 MédiaQMI inc. c. K. (M.), [2019] J.Q. no 3707, 2019 QCCA 814 at paras. 50-60 (Que. C.A.). https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26281

69 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

70 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at paras. 66-71 (S.C.C.).

71 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at paras. 36-39 (S.C.C.).

72 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 20 (S.C.C.).

73 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 56 (S.C.C.).

74 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 51 (S.C.C.).

75 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 67 (S.C.C.).

76 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 74 (S.C.C.).

77 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 128 (S.C.C.).

78 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 143 (S.C.C.).

79 Jamie Cameron, Victim Privacy and Open Justice 2.0: At the Frontiers of Change, 2020 CanLIIDocs 3924, online: https://canlii.ca/t/ttk0. Of course, in a general sense, the question of open court limits has long preoccupied both the Court and commentators, see, for example, the pre-Charter case of Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. MacIntyre, [1982] S.C.J. No. 1, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175 (S.C.C.) and David Lepofsky's early writings in this area (David Lepofsky, Open Justice - The Constitutional Right to Attend and Speak About Criminal Proceedings (Toronto: Butterworths, 1985)).

80 There has been one subsequently reported case - Élément AI inc. c. Servicenow Canada inc. [2021] Q.J. No. 9915, 2021 QCCS 3491 (Que. S.C.) - which had similar facts and in which MediaQMI was applied. We also note that MediaQMI has already been cited repeatedly for its guidance on statutory interpretation, but given the focus of this article, we leave analysis about the case's potential jurisprudential impact in this area for others.

81 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 51 (S.C.C.).

82 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 82 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1353/lim.2021.a942307

83 For example, the Supreme Court of Canada has asserted the "overriding benefit to the public of promoting the out-of-court settlement of disputes" in Union Carbide Canada Inc. v. Bombardier Inc., [2014] S.C.J. No. 35, 2014 SCC 35 at para. 3 (S.C.C.).

84 Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, 2012 SCC 45 at para. 71 (S.C.C.).

85 Karen Eltis, "The Judicial System in the Digital Age: Revisiting the Relationship between Privacy and Accessibility in the Cyber Context" (2011) 56:2 McGill L.J. 289 at 315-316.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1002368ar

86 Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Revisiting the Open Court Principle in an Era of Online Publication: Questioning Presumptive Public Access to Parties' and Witnesses' Personal Information" (2017) 48:2 Ottawa L. Rev. 147 at 182.

87 Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Equality at Stake: Connecting the Privacy/ Vulnerability Cycle to the Debate about Publicly Accessible Online Court Records" (2018) 4 Can. J. Comp. & Contemp. L. 67 at 78.

88 See, generally, Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Revisiting the Open Court Principle in an Era of Online Publication: Questioning Presumptive Public Access to Parties' and Witnesses' Personal Information" (2017) 48:2 Ottawa L. Rev. 147 and Karen Eltis, "The Judicial System in the Digital Age: Revisiting the Relationship between Privacy and Accessibility in the Cyber Context" (2011) 56:2 McGill L.J. 289.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1002368ar

89 Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Revisiting the Open Court Principle in an Era of Online Publication: Questioning Presumptive Public Access to Parties' and Witnesses' Personal Information" (2017) 48:2 Ottawa L. Rev. 147.

90 Karen Eltis, "The Judicial System in the Digital Age: Revisiting the Relationship between Privacy and Accessibility in the Cyber Context" (2011) 56:2 McGill L.J. 289 at 303.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1002368ar

91 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Electronic Disclosure of Personal Information in the Decisions of Administrative Tribunals (February 2010), online: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-privacy-act/privacy-act-compliancehelp/gd_trib_201002/.

92 See, generally, Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Equality at Stake: Connecting the Privacy/Vulnerability Cycle to the Debate about Publicly Accessible Online Court Records" (2018) 4 Can. J. Comp. & Contemp. L. 67.

93 Samuel Singer, "Trans Rights Are Not Just Human Rights: Legal Strategies for Trans

Justice" (2020) 35:2 Can. J. of Law & Soc. 293 at 310-311. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2020.17

94 Jon Khan & Sean Rehaag, "Promoting Privacy, Fairness and the Open Court Principle in Immigration and Refugee Proceedings", Refugee Law Lab Working Paper (November 18, 2021), online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3966386 at 30-31.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3966386

95 MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 46 (S.C.C.).

96 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 47 (S.C.C.).

97 See, for example, Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 124, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326 at 1360 (S.C.C.); Endean v. British Columbia, [2016] S.C.J. No. 42, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 162 at 194 (S.C.C.); MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 23, 2021 SCC 23 at para. 102 (S.C.C.).

98 Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 124, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326 at 1340 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter Edmonton Journal].

99 Shauna Hall-Coates, "Following Digital Media into the Courtroom: Publicity and the Open Court Principle in the Information Age" (2015) 24 Dal. J. Legal Stud. 101 at 117.

100 Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 124, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326 at 1339 (S.C.C.).

101 For a discussion of this shift to virtual hearings, see, for example, Jérémy Boulanger- Bonnelly, "Public Access to Online Hearings" (2022) 45:2 Dal. L.J. 1. It is not the case that virtual hearings bring no access barriers. Boulanger-Bonnelly has observed that, in their shift to virtual hearings, many courts adopted policies that generated barriers which did not analogously exist in the in-person environment (like, for example, needing to contact the court in advance to request access).

102 Aedan Helmer, "'It's not meant to be a circus': Convoy bail hearings testing virtual court capabilities and courtroom decorum" Ottawa Citizen (March 7, 2022), online: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/its-not-meant-to-be-a-circus-convoy-bail-hearings-testingvirtual-court-capabilities-and-courtroom-decorum.

103 See, for example, Annabel Oromoni, "Interplay between virtual and in-person a chance to re-evaluate traditional practices: OBA president" Law Times (April 13, 2022), online: https://www.lawtimesnews.com/news/general/interplay-between-virtual-and-in-persona-chance-to-re-evaluate-traditional-practices-oba-president/365769.

104 See, for example, the discussion in R. v. McClintic, [2010] O.J. No. 6404, 2010 ONSC 2944 at para. 38 (Ont. S.C.J.) (stating, "[s]ociety is not comprised solely of persons who use the Internet. A substantial although perhaps dwindling number of citizens still rely upon traditional media for their information, whether in print or in electronic format.").

105 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, [2021] S.C.J. No. 33, 2021 SCC 33 at para. 46 (S.C.C.).

106 Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, 2012 SCC 45 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

107 R. v. Bernardo, [1995] O.J. No 246, 38 C.R. (4th) 229 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

108 R. v. Bernardo, [1995] O.J. No 246, 38 C.R. (4th) 229 at para. 33 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

109 Jamie Cameron, "Of Scandals, Sources and Secrets: Investigative Reporting, National Post and Globe and Mail" (2011) 54 S.C.L.R. 233 at 238.

https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1215

110 See, for example, the discussion in Tom Goldstein, "The walls erected by traditional media" SCOTUSblog (June 23, 2014), online: https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/the-wallserected-by-traditional-media/.

111 Yuan Stevens, "Dignity, Intersectional Gendered Harm, and a Flexible Approach: Analysis of the Right to One's Image in Quebec" (2022) 19:2 C.J.L.T. 307 at 310. For an example of the targeted harassment of trans people using online forums, see Donie O'Sullivan & Richa Naik, "Kiwi Farms: Trans activist Celebrates Rare Victory Against Online Trolls after Kiwi Farms Deplatforming" CNN (September 7, 2022), online: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/trans-activist-celebrates-rare-victory-against-online-trolls-after-kiwi-farms-deplatforming-1.6058724.

112 Julia Kalinina, "Only 'Counsel' and 'Media' Can Tweet Inside Court: A Charter Infringement?" TheCourt.ca (February 8, 2019), online: http://www.thecourt.ca/electronicdevices-in-court/; Jane Johnston, "Three phases of courts' publicity: reconfiguring Bentham's open justice in the twenty-first century" (2018) 14 International Journal of Law in Context 525 at 532-533. For an earlier account of the potential role of media guidelines in facilitating responsible reporting of court proceedings, see David Lepofsky, Open Justice - The Constitutional Right to Attend and Speak About Criminal Proceedings (Toronto: Butterworths, 1985) at 326.

113 See, for example, Scott v. Regional Health Authority B (c.o.b. Horizon Health Network), [2022] N.B.J. No. 144, 2022 NBQB 135 (N.B.Q.B.); Windels v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [2022] S.J. No. 233, 2022 SKCA 72 (Sask. C.A.); Avolonto v. York University, [2022] O.H.R.T.D. No. 711, 2022 HRTO 718 (Ont. Human Rights Trib.); Z. (T.) v. R. (P.V.), [2022] S.J. No. 210, 2022 SKQB 129 (Sask. Q.B.); LaFreniere v. Dekock- Kruger, 2022 BCCRT 414; Aquino v. Aquino, [2021] O.J. No. 6644, 2021 ONSC 7797 (Ont. S.C.J.); Rémillard v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.), [2021] F.C.J. No. 773, 2021 FC 644 (F.C.).

114 Avolonto v. York University, [2022] O.H.R.T.D. No. 711, 2022 HRTO 718 (Ont. Human Rights Trib.).

115 Z. (T.) v. R. (P.V.), [2022] S.J. No. 210, 2022 SKQB 129 (Sask. Q.B.).

116 B. (A.) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2022] A.J. No. 879, 2022 ABQB 487 at para. 24 (Alta. Q.B.).

117 B. (A.) v. Correctional Service Canada, [2022] C.H.R.D. No. 15, 2022 CHRT 15 (Can. Human Rights Trib.).

118 C. (W.A.) v. F. (C.V.), [2021] O.J. No. 5337, 2021 ONSC 6894 (Ont. S.C.J.). But contrast John Doe v. Nunavut, [2022] Nu.J. No. 2, 2022 NUCJ 1 (Nu. C.J.).

119 R. v. D. (B.M.), [2021] O.J. No. 2021 ONSC 5938 (Ont. S.C.J.).

120 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25 at para. 31, 2021 SCC 25 (S.C.C.).

121 Jon Khan & Sean Rehaag, "Promoting Privacy, Fairness and the Open Court Principle in Immigration and Refugee Proceedings" Refugee Law Lab Working Paper (November 18, 2021), online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3966386 at 21.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3966386

122 B. (A.) v. Correctional Service Canada, [2022] C.H.R.D. No. 15, 2022 CHRT 15 (Can. Human Rights Trib.).

123 C. (W.A.) v. F. (C.V.), [2021] O.J. No. 5337, 2021 ONSC 6894 (Ont. S.C.J.). But contrast John Doe v. Nunavut, [2022] Nu.J. No. 2, 2022 NUCJ 1 (Nu. C.J.).

124 R. v. D. (B.M.), [2021] O.J. No. 2021 ONSC 5938 (Ont. S.C.J.).

125 See Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Equality at Stake: Connecting the Privacy/ Vulnerability Cycle to the Debate about Publicly Accessible Online Court Records" (2018) 4 Can. J. Comp. & Contemp. L. 67.

126 Jane Bailey, "'Sexualized online bullying' through an equality lens: Missed opportunity in AB v. Bragg?" (2014) 59:3 McGill L.J. 709.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1025142ar

127 Chris Hunt & Micah Rankin, "R. v. Spencer: Anonymity, the Rule of Law, and the Shrivelling of the Biographical Core" (2015) 61:1 McGill L.J. 193.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1035388ar

128 See, for example, Alyshah Hasham, "She Wanted to Tell You about her Sexual Assault. The Court has Finally Let Her" Toronto Star (May 14, 2021), online: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/05/14/she-wanted-to-tell-you-about-her-sex-assault-the-court-hasfinally-let-her.html?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=Courts&utm_content=pubban.

129 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, "Improving Support for Victims of Crime" 44th Parliament, 1st Session (December 2022), online: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Reports/RP12132484/justrp07-e.pdf at 45.

130 Emily Mertz, "Albertan behind landmark transgender rights case identifies herself" Global News (November 20, 2018), online: https://globalnews.ca/news/4569587/albertatransgender-rights-case-cathy-fitzpatrick-sex-birth-certificate/.

131 Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Equality at Stake: Connecting the Privacy/ Vulnerability Cycle to the Debate about Publicly Accessible Online Court Records" (2018) 4 Can. J. Comp. & Contemp. L. 67 at 113.

132 See Natalie A. MacDonnell, "Disability Disclosure in the Digital Age: Why the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Should Reform its Approach to Anonymized Decisions" (2016) 25:1 J. of L. & Soc. Policy 109 at 144 https://doi.org/10.60082/0829-3929.1226; Samuel Singer, "Trans Rights Are Not Just Human Rights: Legal Strategies for Trans Justice" (2020) 35:2 Can. J. of L. and Soc. 293 at 309-312.

https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2020.17

133 Sherman Estate v. Donovan, [2021] S.C.J. No. 25, 2021 SCC 25 at para. 80 (S.C.C.).

134 Jena McGill & Ian Kerr, "Reduction to Absurdity: Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and the Need for Digital Enlightenment" Digital Enlightenment Yearbook (IOS Press, 2012).

https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-057-4-199

135 Karen Eltis, "The Judicial System in the Digital Age: Revisiting the Relationship between Privacy and Accessibility in the Cyber Context" (2011) 56:2 McGill L.J. 289 at 306.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1002368ar

136 Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Equality at Stake: Connecting the Privacy/ Vulnerability Cycle to the Debate about Publicly Accessible Online Court Records" (2018) 4 Can. J. Comp. & Contemp. L. 67 at 113.

137 For conceptions of privacy interests or frameworks that incorporate equality, see, for example, Jane Bailey, "Towards an Equality-Enhancing Conception of Privacy" (2008) 31:2 Dal. L.J. 267 (focusing on criminal law jurisprudence) and Kristen Thomasen, "Private Law & Public Space: The Canadian Privacy Torts in an Era of Personal Remote-Surveillance Technology" (Doctoral Dissertation), online: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/43746 (focusing on privacy torts). For discussions in relation to Canadian open court jurisprudence, see Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, "Equality at Stake: Connecting the Privacy/ Vulnerability Cycle to the Debate about Publicly Accessible Online Court Records" (2018) 4 Can. J. Comp. & Contemp. L. 67 and Jane Bailey, "'Sexualized online bullying' through an equality lens: Missed opportunity in AB v. Bragg?" (2014) 59:3 McGill L.J. 709. Although beyond the scope of this article, it is also important to acknowledge the potential helpful role that adopting a privacy-by-design approach in relation to court records could have in protecting equality-seeking and marginalized groups. See, for example, Jon Khan & Sean Rehaag, "Promoting Privacy, Fairness and the Open Court Principle in Immigration and Refugee Proceedings" Refugee Law Lab Working Paper (November 18, 2021), online:

https://doi.org/10.7202/1025142ar, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3966386 at 37 (recommending, inter alia, that "[j]udges should prepare decisions in ways that minimize unnecessary disclosure of private information, including avoiding using party or third-party names and other identifying details" and "[l]awyers, both for parties and for the government, should be encouraged to minimize the unnecessary disclosure of private information in their materials, and they should prioritize carefully scrutinizing materials that are expected to be publicly available.").

138 We note that Jamie Cameron has recently observed that "[a]t 18 decisions, the open court principle accounts for just over 20% of the Court's s.2(b) docket in the first 40 years" (Jamie Cameron, "Freedom of Expression and the Charter: 1982-2022" (May 26, 2022), online: https://cfe.ryerson.ca/blog/2022/05/freedom-expression-and-charter-1982-2022-part-2-5.