Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario,  2 S.C.R. 188,
 S.C.J. No. 41, 2005 SCC 41, at para. 1.
Openness is necessary to maintain the independence and impartiality of
courts. It is integral to public confidence in the justice system and the public’s understanding of the administration of justice.
Vancouver Sun (Re),  2 S.C.R. 332,  S.C.J. No. 41,
2004 SCC 43, at para. 25.
The concept of open courts is deeply embedded in the common law tradi-
tion. The principle was described in the early English case of Scott v. Scott,
 A.C. 419 (H.L.). A passage from the reasons given by Lord Shaw of
Dunfermline is worthy of reproduction for its precise articulation of what
underlies the principle. He stated at p. 477:
“. . . Where there is no publicity there is no justice.” “Publicity is the
very soul of justice. . . . ”
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 480,  S.C.J. No. 38, at para. 21.
 This is not to suggest that the openness principle is absolute. It is not. But the principle is now well established — court
proceedings are presumptively “open” in Canada subject only to
when it is shown that “disclosure would subvert the ends of justice or unduly impair its proper administration”: Toronto Star, at
para. 4 (emphasis in original).
 It is in this legal setting that certain defendants in this
civil case now seek to close portions of the case from the public.
The case itself is not wholly personal or devoid of any public
interest. It arises out of the acquittal of a man in a criminal sexual assault case. The exonerated accused and his family brought
this civil case against the complainant and the police for various
causes of action including negligent investigation by the police.
The police defendants are the parties who brought this motion to
close certain portions of the case from public view.
 The police defendants originally moved for a blanket exclusion of the public — seal the court file and close the court to the
public. Alternatively, these defendants suggested lesser relief.
By the time of oral submissions, the police defendants significantly reduced the scope of the relief sought to the sealing of the
materials to be filed in support of their motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The police defendants also sought, in
essence, the continuation of the criminal case publication ban.
 S.M., formerly the complainant in the related criminal case
and a defendant in this civil case (“defendant/complainant”),
although given notice, did not respond in writing or appear