62. This motion is not about concealing information from the public or
making otherwise public information private; this motion is about balancing the public’s right to access to information and the privacy rights of
 The police defendants principally rely on two trial court
decisions in which the court file was sealed in civil cases: K. (K.)
v. G. (K.W.),  O.J. No. 5679, 48 C.P.C. (6th) 71 (S.C.J.) and
J. Doe v. TBH,  O.J. No. 839, 45 C.P.C. (3d) 1 (Gen. Div.).
I find neither helpful. Of important note, the media was not
involved in either case.
 In K. (K.), there was no underlying non-publication order
and the plaintiff only sought, in essence, a civil version of a criminal case non-publication order (K. (K.), at para. 1). In a very
brief decision, it appears that the court on its own, and without
explanation, expanded the relief sought to include the sealing of
the court file (K. (K.), at para. 6).
 J. Doe was a consent order. There was significant and
particularized evidence placed before the court on this issue
(J. Doe, at paras. 2 and 6). There was no necessity and proportionality analysis as now required by the Dagenais/Mentuck test.
 For these reasons, I decline to follow either K. (K.) or
 Addressing the sealing issue directly, it is patently clear
that the police defendants have failed to discharge their burden
to overcome the presumption of openness in our courts. They
failed to satisfy any of the three elements of the necessity prong
of the Dagenais/Mentuck test. Generalized assertions by their
lawyer that the Rule 20 material will contain sensitive and identifying information does not carry the day.
 Further, and concerning, the police defendants exhibit an
apparent misunderstanding of the law in this area. There is an
overriding principle of openness in our courts. This principle is on
full display here. Both the related criminal trial and its preliminary hearing were open to the public. The transcripts of these
court proceedings are available to the public. Their respective
court files are open to the public. The reasons for judgment of
Pomerance J. is public and can be accessed by anyone at A. (H.).
Yet, the police defendants seek to seal the transcripts and the reasons for judgment, materials they concede are available to the
 The police defendants say they want to seal sensitive and
personal information contained in the Rule 20 material, and
especially in the police video interviews, because making such
material public will negatively impact their ability to investigate
like allegations. But this sweeping statement ignores the fact