University where he worked faced claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal of an immunologist who challenged a chambers judge’s issuance of a publication ban protecting the identity of someone who sued him for sexual assault and sexual harassment.
In Umeshappa v. PJ, 2025 NSCA 76, the respondent commenced an action on Mar. 24, alleging sexual assault and sexual harassment against the appellant doctor, who was an assistant professor at Dalhousie University. She also asserted negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the university.
That same day, the respondent moved for an order to use a pseudonym in the proceedings and to prohibit the publication of her name and information regarding her family members’ identities.
The respondent’s written submission alleged emotional and psychological trauma from the sexual assault and concerns that divulging her identity could jeopardize her private and social relationships and lead to irreparable psychological and emotional harm, worsen her trauma, and deter her from participating in the proceedings.
On Apr. 3, the prothonotary issued an interim ex parte order pending the hearing. On May 1, Justice Diane Rowe granted the confidentiality order.
The doctor appealed. He argued that the chambers judge erred in declining to adjourn the motion to permit him to retain legal counsel and issuing the publication ban without enough evidence.
Order set aside
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal granted the doctor leave to appeal, allowed his appeal, and set aside the chambers judge’s order. The appeal court stressed the importance of limiting the justice system’s transparency only when justified under the relevant law and supported by an adequate evidentiary foundation.
First, the appeal court ruled that the judge improperly refused the doctor’s adjournment request and unjustly limited his ability to respond to the motion.
The appeal court explained that the judge should have balanced the parties’ interests and weighed the possible prejudice to the doctor against any caused to the respondent, which an extension of the interim order could have mitigated.
Second, regarding the confidentiality order, the appeal court held that the judge failed to apply the principles in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, which required a serious risk to a competing public interest to justify restricting court openness. According to the appeal court, this precedent did not permit engaging in speculation.
The appeal court noted that a party seeking a publication ban could show a serious risk to their dignity to secure an exceptional order limiting access, with previous rulings recognizing such a risk in disseminating information regarding sexual assault or harassment.
In this case, the appeal court said the evidence, specifically counsel’s affidavit referring to the respondent’s concerns about possible negative impacts, lacked direct evidence from the respondent herself. The appeal court concluded that the evidence was speculative and insufficient under the Sherman Estate test.
The appeal court noted that the parties could reapply for a confidentiality order upon providing enough evidentiary basis in line with the applicable legal principles.
