Une dispute de franchisés envers Tim Hortons avec une requête de Tim Hortons de garder leurs documents financiers confidentiels a produit une décision avec une bonne liste de jurisprudence en PI sur les ordonnances pour préserver la confidentialité des documents des parties:
Trade Secret and Intellectual Property Cases
 Cases of true trade secrets and patents are likely to involve important public and private interests and sealing orders have frequently been granted in such cases: see Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc., 2008 FC 892,  F.C.J. No. 1593; Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc., 2006 FC 1405,  F.C.J. No. 1764; Camoplast Inc. v. Soucy International Inc., 2003 FC 1401,  F.C.J. No. 1791; Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., 2004 FC 567,  F.C.J. No. 684; AB Hassle. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) 2000 CanLII 17121 (F.C.A.), (2003), 5 C.P.R. (4th) 149,  F.C.J. No. 283 (F.C.A.). They have been granted prior to Sierra Club – see, for example, Dupont Canada Inc. v. Russel Metals Inc.,  O.J. No. 2043; CPC International Inc. v. Seaforth Creamery Inc.,  O.J. No. 2059, 70 C.P.R. (3d) 434. In Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2005 FC 1368,  F.C.J. No. 1669, Prothonotary Milczynski of the Federal Court refused to make a confidentiality order in a patent case, although she noted that such orders were common in patent cases. She found that, on the evidence, the Sierra Club test had not been met. See also Hyundai Auto Canada v. Cross Canada Auto Body Supply (West) Ltd., 2006 FC 1127,  F.C.J. No. 1402. Orders were refused in Osmose-Pentox Inc. v. Société Laurentide Inc., 2005 FC 1689,  F.C.J. No. 2093; and in Novopharm Ltd. v. Company “X”, 2008 FC 840,  F.C.J. No. 1062.
Voir: Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., 2010 ONSC 789 (CanLII)