Practitioners of all stripes can take solace in the fact absent a sealing Order granted under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c43_e.htm , once a transcript is filed with court by any party, it is accessible to the public notwithstanding the Deemed Undertaking Rule.  This extends to transcripts filed in support of motions, including motions to challenge a refusal to answer.  This public access principle is to be strictly applied, according to Justice Cullity's recent decision in Lewis v. Cantertrot Investments Ltd., [2007] O.J. No. 4201 (S.C.J.).

Parties to a motion may merely list a transcript along with all other relevant documents: R. 37.10(2)).  But the transcript - meaning the entire transcript - must be filed at least two days before the hearing by the party relying on it: Rule 34.18(2).  Since the consent of all parties is required to file a partial transcript (R. 38.18(3)), in practical terms the filing party itself vetoes whether a partial transcript is filed. 

After a transcript is filed, the onus is on the examinee to seek a sealing Order.  The test for a sealing Order laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Deganais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 (S.C.C.) and restated in R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 442 (S.C.C.) is very strict, however.  For an application of this test, see the recent case of Moore v. Bertuzzi , [2007] O.J. No. 5113, where a sealing Order was denied to the applicant defendant.

Conclude your review of this interesting set of principles with Rule 34.18(4), which states the Judge  "may read only the portions to which a party refers": R. 34.18(4).  So the public right to access extends to the entire transcript though the Judge only reads a portion of it. 

Another good reason to avoid trials where possible.

Chris Graham

READ THE TRANSCRIBED PODCAST

During Episode #43 of Hull on Estates, Craig and Bianca gave an overview of a previous podcast aired on December 12, 2006. They furthered this discussion on managing estate litigation matters, and considered multiple proceedings (ex. dependent support claims), how issues are set out in Orders for Directions, and evidence requirements, including documentary discovery. 

The case of Burns Estate v. Mellon, (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 64 (C.A.) was disussed as well.