NB Court of Appeal refuses to identify worker compensation appellant only by initials

In a workers’ compensation proceeding, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s motion asking the appeal court to identify her solely by her initials in the style of cause, endorsements, appeal reasons, and other publicly accessible records. 

The appellant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal decision under New Brunswick’s Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal Act, 1994. 

The appellant moved for an order preventing her full name from appearing in any published decision or online database arising from the proceeding, except if necessary for internal court administration. She alleged that: 

• The appeal record and submissions contained extensive, sensitive medical information, including detailed discussions about her health, symptoms, treatment history, and disputed diagnoses 
• Publicly identifying her by her full name in relation to this medical information would expose her, a person with a disability, to stigma, professional prejudice, and other serious and disproportionate harms 
• Permanently indexing detailed medical findings under her full name would lead to irreparable and unnecessary harm beyond the appeal’s legal issues, as her livelihood and professional activities depended on public trust and online searchability 
• The narrow and proportionate relief she requested, limited exclusively to the use of initials, preserved the open court principle and safeguarded her from undue harm 
• Through its inherent jurisdiction, the appeal court could control its own process and order anonymization if necessary in the interest of justice 

An affidavit supporting the appellant’s motion noted that she was requesting relief relating to the style of cause and the appeal court’s decisions, rather than seeking a publication ban, a sealing order, or the anonymization of the entire record. 

The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, as the respondent, did not oppose the appellant’s motion. 

Anonymization denied

The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick’s decision (2026 NBCA 25) dismissed the motion. 

As the first part of the test in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, the appeal court addressed whether court openness seriously risked an important public interest. 

The appeal court acknowledged that the courts have recognized privacy as an important public interest. However, the appeal court reiterated that one should show a serious risk to that interest to merit an order granting an exception to the open court principle. 

Apart from a bald assertion that the file included medical information that would expose her, a person with a disability, to serious and disproportionate harm, the appeal court noted that it received no evidence about: 

• the nature of the serious risk to a public interest that would arise through a failure to anonymize the appellant’s name 
• the nature of the medical information involved 
• her profession 
• the disability impacting her 
• the possible stigma 

As the case had failed to meet the first part, the appeal court deemed it unnecessary to tackle the other steps of the Sherman test.