filings may run afoul of the s. 486.4(1) non-publication order. In
addition, the police defendants add that the disclosure framework found in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (“MFIPPA”) should be
adopted by this court.
a. Privacy interests
 I agree that the privacy interests of the defendant/complainant need to be protected in this related civil case.
I agree that the protection of the privacy interests of a complainant encourages more reporting of sex offences and thus
benefits the administration of justice. But in my view, the existing order pursuant to s. 486.4(1) provides that very protection
and it continues here.
b. Section 486.4(1)
 The claimed concerns over the breadth of the s. 486.4(1)
order are misplaced. The order does not include the filing of
motion material in a civil case. First, a fair reading of the section
shows that it targets “publication”, the public dissemination of
the information by any means. The police defendants grasp the
last method of public dissemination, transmittal, as encompass-
ing the act of court filing. This is incorrect. Not only should the
statute be read as a whole for its meaning, but also such an
interpretation would lead to an umbrella coverage of virtually
any communication of the information far beyond its intended
purpose. Second, the statute contains a court disclosure excep-
tion found in subsection (4), which states:
(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the
disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when
it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the
 For both reasons, the prohibitions of an order under
s. 486.4(1) do not apply to traditional Rule 20 filings with the
 I decline to adopt the framework of disclosure found in
MFIPPA. First, MFIPPA does not apply to court filings: s. 51(1),
MFIPPA. Second, courts are not “institutions” as defined in
MFIPPA. Courts are independent and have developed a separate
privacy regime, discussed below, in balancing privacy rights, the
right to a fair trial and the freedom of the press.