Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: A.B.C. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2011 NSSC 476

 

Date: 20111223

Docket: Hfx. No. 262658

Registry: Halifax

 

Between:

A.B.C.

Plaintiff

v.

 

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia

 

Defendant

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

Restriction on Publication:      Restriction on publication of plaintiff's name under Civil Procedure Rules 85.04(1) and (2) and 85.05(1) and (2).

 

Judge:                   The Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam

 

Heard:                  September 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 2011, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Final Written

Submissions:         December 7, 2011

 

Subject:                confidentiality orders, publication bans, discretion, historic sexual assault

 


Summary:             The plaintiff was sexually assaulted by a probation officer and commenced an action against the Province, which admitted liability, but raised a limitations defence. The plaintiff applied pursuant to Rule 85.04 for a confidentiality order allowing him to proceed by use of a pseudonym and directing that his identity not be published or broadcast, and that documents be filed using the pseudonym. There was evidence from a psychologist of likely harm arising to the plaintiff as a result of the publication of his identity.

 

Issue:          Should a confidentiality order be granted?

 

Result:                  While court proceedings are presumptively open, the court has a discretion to restrict public access. The court's discretion should not be exercised for reasons only of potential inconvenience or embarrassment to the individual concerned. However, in this case there was evidence that disclosure of the plaintiff's identity was likely to lead to the re‑traumatizing of the plaintiff, making it more difficult for him to undergo successful therapy. While the public was entitled to know about the proceeding generally, a confidentiality order respecting his identity was justified in view of the potential harm arising from disclosure.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.