137(2) A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding
before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public
 The media objects, citing s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, which provides:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
. . . . .
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including free-
dom of the press and other media of communication[.]
 To satisfy its burden, the police defendants filed only affi-
davit evidence of their lawyer. Therein, the lawyer asserts
that the intended Rule 20 material contains sensitive and identi-
fying information about the defendant/complainant, the plain-
tiff/accused and others (affidavit of Sheila C. Handler, dated
May 23, 2017, at para. 17 (“affidavit”)). The Rule 20 material
sought to be sealed includes the preliminary hearing and trial
transcripts in the criminal case, the police video interviews
of the defendant/complainant, the plaintiff/accused and others,
and the reasons for judgment in the criminal case (affidavit,
at para. 17). The reason for the proposed sealing order is stated
in the affidavit, at para. 19:
I verily believe that the documents filed and to be filed in this action for use
on the Rule 20 motion would clearly identify and provide personal infor-
mation of the parties and that the filing of some of this documentation may
be in violation of and/or inconsistent with the purpose of the publication
bans placed on the criminal trial evidence.
 The stated purpose behind the proposed sealing order is
found in paras. 57, 58, 61 and 62 of the police defendants’ factum, which state:
57. The police defendants have an ongoing interest in their ability to effectively investigate allegations involving sensitive and private information,
such as those involving sexual assault. The ability to conduct these investigations may be fettered by a complainant’s fear that sensitive and private
information reported to the police may later be made available to the public,
without their consultation.
58. The threat of having private and intimate details becoming available to
the public could discourage victims of crime from reporting such crimes to
the police, or could discourage complainants from being truthful and forthcoming with police.
61. It would be contrary to the proper administration of justice to protect the
privacy of complainants in a criminal proceeding, only to have that privacy
violated if and/or when the complainants are involuntarily made defendants
in civil proceedings.