This was an Appeal of a Chambers Justice’s issuance of a Restricted Court Access Order. The Appellant’s primary ground of Appeal was that Rule 6.32 requires that the Applicant provide notice of the Application to obtain the Restricted Court Access Order to the Appellant and the media, and that the Applicant had not provided such notice. The Court disagreed with the interpretation of Rule 6.32, and noted that the Court has the discretion to issue restrictions on Restricted Court Access Orders pursuant to Rule 6.28, and that the Court may direct when, and to whom, an Application must be served per Rule 6.34(3). The Court further noted that the test for granting a Restricted Court Access Order was met, and that solicitor-client privilege was not waived in respect of the documents that were the subject of the Restricted Court Access Order. The Appeal was dismissed.