Having reviewed the transcript and the Master’s reasons, I agree with the defendants that the Master did not engage in a balancing that was required of him. That is mostly likely because he concluded that whatever public interest there was in non-disclosure could be adequately protected by a confidentiality order which would simultaneously not impair the plaintiff’s discovery of documents. In doing so, it is apparent the Master accepted the plaintiff’s submissions (also raised before me) that the confidentiality order granted in another inmate assault case was a precedent that could be used here: Margison v. British Columbia, 2016 BCSC 634.
"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.