2 total
Motion for further record of proceedings in judicial review of a regulation dismissed.
The applicant, Valero Energy Inc., brought a motion in its application for judicial review seeking an order to compel the respondents to produce a further record of proceedings, including internal Cabinet and Ministerial documents.
The underlying application challenges a regulation imposing domestic renewable content requirements for fuels.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Judicial Review Procedure Act does not require a record of proceedings for a challenge to a regulation, as making a regulation is not a 'statutory power of decision'.
The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order production, noting that judicial review of a regulation is a limited exercise in statutory interpretation and does not afford a right to documentary discovery.
The Auditor General Act lacks the clear and explicit language required to abrogate privilege.
The Auditor General of Ontario appealed a lower court decision regarding the interpretation of section 10 of the Auditor General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
A.35.
The core issue was whether the Act confers authority on the Auditor General to access and compel disclosure of privileged information (solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement privilege) from a grant recipient, Laurentian University of Sudbury, during a value-for-money audit.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that statutory language must demonstrate a clear, explicit, and unambiguous intent to abrogate privilege, and the Auditor General Act's provisions did not meet this high standard.
