What Ontario Courts are Saying about Redaction of Confidential or Sensitive Information

Catia Amorim

Associate

July 13, 2021

The Superior Court of Justice recently reiterated the test to be met when it comes to redaction of otherwise relevant documents.

In Marsella v. BDBC, 2021 ONSC 3276, a wrongful dismissal case, the plaintiff sought production of unredacted copies of certain documents in the defendant’s Schedule A. The documents at issue were created during an internal investigation which led to the plaintiff’s dismissal and contained the names of non-parties to the litigation.

Arguing for disclosure, the plaintiff posited that there was no evidence to show that the redacted information was sufficiently confidential or sensitive in nature that disclosure would result in “significant harm or prejudice” to BDBC or any non-parties. … Read More

Federal Government Redaction Blunder Makes Headlines

Candice Chan-Glasgow, Director, Review Services and Counsel

March 15, 2021

A recent CBC news article highlights the Federal Government’s failure to properly redact sensitive information. This follows some high profile redaction failures south of the border, most notably when Paul Manafort’s lawyers failed to properly redact sensitive and damaging information in documents filed with the Federal Court.

Proper redaction tools and workflows should be used to ensure privileged or sensitive information is appropriately redacted. As a gentle reminder, The Federation of Law Societies of Canada amended its Model Code of Professional Conduct in October 2019 to include commentary on technological competence:

[4A] To maintain the required level of competence, a lawyer should develop an understanding of, and ability to use, technology relevant to the nature and area of the lawyer’s practice and responsibilities. … Read More

Redacting Non-Relevant Information

Candice Chan-Glasgow

Director, Document Review Services

January 29, 2018

Earlier this month, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the general principles applicable to the redaction of relevant documents. In Qaddoura et al. v. Walkom et al., 2018 ONSC 20, the defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals given at her continued examination for discovery.

The plaintiff’s claim related to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident and involved a significant claim with respect to loss of income and future care costs. The plaintiff undertook to provide the defendants with updated records from her family physician.… Read More