2 total
Municipal in camera discussions not automatically confidential in civil discovery.
In a motion arising from an application relating to municipal council conduct, the court addressed refusals made during examinations for discovery and whether the applicant must disclose the identity of individuals financing the litigation.
Respondent councillors had refused to answer questions about matters discussed during closed municipal council meetings under s. 239 of the Municipal Act.
The court held that in camera municipal meetings are not cloaked with confidentiality and that councillors may be required to disclose what transpired, subject only to solicitor-client privilege.
The court also ordered the applicant to disclose the identity of the person or persons who funded the legal retainer, rejecting claims that solicitor-client or litigation privilege protected the identity of the financiers.
Economic development corporation found to be an institution subject to municipal freedom of information requests.
The applicant, an economic development corporation, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner finding it to be an 'institution' under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).
The Commissioner ordered the applicant to respond to a freedom of information request.
The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's original decision, finding it was reasonable to interpret the relevant regulation as capturing the applicant, despite the repeal of the underlying statutory provision.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
