The following excerpt is from British Columbia (Civil Forfeiture Act, Director) v. Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd., 2008 BCSC 584 (CanLII):
In P.(D.E.) v. P.(N.J.) at p. 76, Mr. Justice Drost referred to the duty of the court to consider the privacy interests of persons other than the parties to a proceeding when adjudicating a Rule 26(11) application. In order for the court to fulfil that duty, persons who may be affected by the court's order should have the opportunity to make submissions, should they so choose. I note that in D.E.P. v. N.J.P. and McGarva v. British Columbia the court considered the privacy interests of persons other than the parties without hearing from them. However, in neither of those cases was the application of Rule 44(5) raised. Therefore, those decisions and the other authorities relied upon by the Director are not, in my view, determinative of this application.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.