An Ontario court has dismissed a pair of motions seeking permission to report to regulators, and other authorities, evidence of alleged wrongdoing that was disclosed in discovery as part of a pair of ongoing civil lawsuits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed two motions from Orbixa Technologies Inc., a Toronto-based developer of stock trading software, which is suing Montreal brokerage firm JitneyTrade Inc.

Orbixa sought permission to disclose information that was revealed in discovery as part of its lawsuit, to regulators and the authorities. The company also sought to report information uncovered in another lawsuit to police.

Generally evidence uncovered in an examination for discovery can only be used in that proceeding, unless confidentiality is trumped by a more compelling public interest, the court noted in its decision, Orbixa Technologies v JitneyTrade, 2015.

However, before the information unearthed in discovery can be used, the party seeking to use it will have to apply to the court for leave, specifying the purposes of using the information, and the reasons why it is justified, the court noted.

Orbixa alleged that during the course of examinations for discovery for its lawsuit, it “obtained evidence of serious infractions of Canadian securities laws”, according to the decision, and it sought to file a formal complaint to the regulatory authorities. In order to file that complaint, it sought “to produce documents and disclose information in discovery transcripts to those authorities,” the decision noted.

However, Orbixa didn’t provide enough evidence to support its motion, the court ruled.

“The evidence in this case, which is limited to a very general allegation based on what the moving party admits to be speculation and another statement based on documents not put before the court, is insufficient to meet that onus and the motion is dismissed,” the court ruled.

The court also denied Orbixa’s motion for permission to report information disclosed in a separate lawsuit to police, again ruling that there was not enough evidence of a violation to support waiving the rule that prevents the evidence being used in another proceeding.