Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Estate Planning
: Toronto Estate Law BlogFile For All to See
By Hull & Hull LLP
The OBA Civil Litigation Section recently held a Continuing Legal Education seminar on the deemed undertaking rule (Rule 31.1.01(3)) and the filing of transcripts. For those who have not had a chance to listen to our (excellent, eloquent!) podcast on this point, here is the abridged version:
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
Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on March 11, 2008 (boomark / email).
Furloughed Workers
File Employment Lawsuits
Washington Mutual Bank Collapse
May File for Bankruptcy
US Postal Service Workers
File Labor and Wages Class Action
Deja Vu
Exotic Dancers file class action claiming back wages
Comcast Agrees Tentative $16 Million Settlement in Consumer File Sharing Class Action
Comcast Agrees Tentative $16 Million Settlement in Consumer File Sharing Class Action
ASMP and Other Visual Artists File Class Action Lawsuit Against Google
Google Faces Class Action for Copyright Infringement

Interesting Twist on File Ownership Issue
Cases Released August 15, 2008
IRS E-File Opens for 2008 Filing Season
Transfer Huge Files with PipeBytes








