Federal Court Grants Solicitor’s Eyes-Only Protection in Northern Reflections v. Aritzia

In Northern Reflections Ltd. and Aritzia Inc. et al ( 2026 CanLII 71256 (FC)), Associate Judge Shannon granted Aritzia’s motion for a protective order containing a solicitor’s eyes only (SEO) designation. The underlying action concerns allegations that Aritzia infringed Northern Reflections’ registered trademark for EFFORTLESS by selling pants and shorts branded as “EFFORTLESS” or “THE EFFORTLESS PANT”. While the parties agreed that a protective order was appropriate, they disagreed on whether some information should receive the heightened protection of an SEO designation.

Aritzia sought SEO protection for product sales and costs, costs of manufacturing, and gross profit margins for 33 Aritzia products that form the EFFORTLESS product line. The Court considered this information to be highly sensitive and of significant value to any would-be competitor, such as Northern Reflections, in the highly competitive women’s fashion industry. Northern Reflections opposed the SEO provision, arguing that because the company lacked any in-house counsel, it required certain executives to be able to access all produced information to permit them to properly instruct counsel in this litigation. Northern Reflections further argued that Aritzia does not regard it as a competitor, and that any alleged harm is speculative and unsupported by the evidence.

Reviewing the applicable authorities, the Court reiterated that the party seeking an SEO order must demonstrate that the harm caused by the disclosure of information at issue poses a serious threat to the interest in question, which is real, substantial, and grounded in evidence. The Court concluded that Aritzia met this burden. Although the question of whether the parties are in fact competitors is a factual determination reserved for trial, the Court found that Northern Reflections operates in the same industry, claims to be a competitor, and is at minimum an aspiring competitor.

The Court also accepted that Northern Reflections’ executives could unintentionally misuse the information in future business activities, especially given their involvement with other fashion-related businesses. These circumstances increased the risk of harm and weighed in favor of an SEO designation.

Finally, the Court rejected Northern Reflections’ argument that an SEO order would improperly interfere with the solicitor-client relationship. The Court ultimately held that such concerns were mitigated by the order’s designation challenge mechanism, which permits parties to contest SEO designations if deemed necessary to disclose specific documents to a client.

In view of the foregoing, the Court held that Aritzia satisfied the test for the issuance of a protective order that includes an SEO designation. 

The decision provides a useful review of the principles governing SEO orders in Federal Court litigation and highlights the evidentiary burden required to obtain such relief. The decision also reinforces that SEO protection remains available in trademark disputes where detailed commercial information is at issue and the evidentiary record establishes a real and substantial risk of competitive harm.