Law360 Canada ( December 5, 2017, 8:35 AM EST) -- Appeal by the parties from three orders related to document discovery. The plaintiff was an inmate transferred to a federal penitentiary. The following day he was brutally assaulted by other inmates, resulting in severe injuries. The assault occurred in the prison yard with no guards present, in an area without video surveillance. The plaintiff sued the Crown and individual penitentiary employees on the basis of occupier's liability and negligence. The claim alleged the defendants ought to have known that the plaintiff, as a criminal gang member, was susceptible to a retributive attack by rival gang members housed at the same penitentiary. Document disclosure included 860 documents, of which 111 included redacted information. The defendants took the position that the redacted information would compromise confidential informer privilege, or was justified by the doctrine of public interest immunity. In the first order under appeal, a chambers judge refused disclosure of documents redacted due to informer privilege or public interest immunity. In the second order under appeal, a different case management judge ordered the defendants to answer certain discovery questions on the basis informer privilege did not justify refusal. In the third order under appeal, the first chambers judge declined to re-open the first decision. The plaintiff appealed the first and third orders. The defendants appealed the second order....