David Seth Goodis

The applicant ministry sought judicial review of an order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring disclosure of the full names of Family Responsibility Office employees contained in a requester’s file.

The ministry argued the information was excluded from disclosure under s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as relating to labour relations matters, or alternatively exempt under ss. 14(1)(e) and 20 due to safety concerns.

The Divisional Court held the IPC reasonably concluded the records were created in the course of the institution’s operational mandate rather than about labour relations, and therefore were not excluded from the Act.

The court also found no evidence that disclosure to the requester posed a safety risk to the employees and determined that compliance with the IPC order would not conflict with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order governing employee identification practices.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the public disclosure of the first three digits of postal codes and the number of sexual offenders in each area from the Sex Offender Registry.

The Ministry argued the Commissioner erred in interpreting the law enforcement exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner applied the correct legal test, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably concluded that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would cause endangerment or non-compliance with reporting requirements.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of records containing homeowners' addresses and environmental test results.

The Divisional Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The court found that the information arguably constituted 'personal information' and that procedural fairness, as well as potentially section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required that the affected homeowners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their information could be disclosed.

The City of Ottawa sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision ordering the processing of a freedom of information request for the personal emails of a municipal employee.

The employee had used his workplace email address for volunteer work unrelated to his employment.

The Divisional Court held that the emails were not within the 'custody or control' of the City under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court applied a purposive approach, finding that the legislation was intended to enhance democratic accountability, not to capture the private communications of employees merely because they were stored on a government server.

The application for judicial review was granted and the IPC decision was set aside.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner and Showline Limited appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an adjudicator's order granting access to records held by the City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO).

The central issue was whether TEDCO's officers were 'appointed or chosen by or under the authority of the council of the municipality' under s. 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal applied a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, finding that because the City is TEDCO's sole shareholder and appoints its directors, the officers appointed by those directors are chosen under the City's authority.

The appeals were allowed, and TEDCO was deemed subject to the Act.

The applicant submitted a freedom of information request for records concerning an Ontario Provincial Police review of alleged police and Crown misconduct.

The Ministry refused disclosure, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemptions and found the public interest override in s. 23 of the Act did not apply to them.

The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of these exemptions from the public interest override infringed the applicant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

The Court remedied the breach by reading the exemptions into s. 23.

The applicant, Geranium Corporation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner exempting a letter submitted by a resident to the Town of Innisfil from disclosure under s. 14(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

The applicant argued that the non-disclosure deprived it of knowing allegations made against it prior to a town council decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commissioner's interpretation of MFIPPA reasonable.

The court noted that the Commissioner's decision did not prevent the Ontario Municipal Board from ordering production of the document in related proceedings.

The applicant, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), was successful on an application for judicial review regarding a freedom of information request made by the respondent, Showline Limited.

TEDCO sought partial indemnity costs of $18,479.00 against Showline.

Showline argued that no costs should be awarded as it was merely exercising its statutory rights and the case raised novel issues of statutory interpretation.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, noting that Showline is a private commercial entity that mounted a vigorous response.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the requested amount fair and reasonable and awarded TEDCO $18,479.00 in costs against Showline.

The applicant, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (IPC) which found that TEDCO was deemed to be part of the City of Toronto under subsection 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The IPC had ordered the City to obtain records from TEDCO responsive to a freedom of information request.

The Divisional Court quashed the IPC's decision, holding that the adjudicator erred in interpreting the term 'officers' in subsection 2(3) to include 'directors'.

The Court found that TEDCO, incorporated under the Business Corporations Act, is not subject to the Act.

The applicant brought applications for judicial review of decisions made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Divisional Court denied the applicant's request to call witnesses, noting that judicial review is limited to the record before the administrative boards.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the court found both administrative decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications as frivolous and vexatious.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants, Boeing and Bombardier, sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to disclose three agreements relating to the purchase and sale of the de Havilland business.

The applicants argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the third-party information exemption in s. 17 of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the complex, multi-party agreements were the product of negotiation and did not contain information 'supplied' to the Ministry by the applicants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Commissioner upholding the Ministry's refusal to disclose expense records and notebooks of the OPP security detail for former Premier Harris.

The Assistant Commissioner found that disclosing the records could reveal the size and pattern of the security detail, reasonably endangering the safety of the Premier and officers under s. 14(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Assistant Commissioner applied the correct test and reasonably concluded there was an evidentiary basis for the exemption.