Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 NOVEMBER 2026

Lawyer Denied Anonymization In Traffic Ticket Appeal (R. v. Slogoski)

Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Contributor
Explore more from Gardiner Roberts LLP

Lawyers, physicians, accountants and other professionals who depend heavily on their reputations may understandably wish to keep their names from being reported in court decisions in which they are involved. The open court principle, however, does not generally allow for anonymization simply because a party has a professional reputation to protect.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Lawyers, physicians, accountants and other professionals who depend heavily on their reputations may understandably wish to keep their names from being reported in court decisions in which they are involved. The open court principle, however, does not generally allow for anonymization simply because a party has a professional reputation to protect.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia confirms that a litigant’s profession, on its own, will not justify an order shielding their identity, even where the other parties do not object: R. v. Slogoski, 2026 BCSC 2059.

The applicant in the case was a lawyer who appealed a conviction for a speeding ticket issued in Surrey, British Columbia. The ticket had been deemed to be not disputed after the lawyer attended her traffic court hearing by telephone and was refused an adjournment. The only jeopardy she faced was a $138 fine.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from