Jennifer Gold

A reporter for the Toronto Star requested access to the names of the top 100 physician billers to the Ontario Health Insurance Program for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, along with their medical specialties and billing amounts.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that physicians' names in this context were not personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Ontario Medical Association and two groups of physicians appealed, arguing that physicians' names constitute personal information and are therefore exempt from disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the billing information, representing gross professional revenue before business expenses, did not reveal something of a personal nature about the physicians.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario and a group of affected physicians brought procedural motions in three related applications for judicial review concerning an order to release physician billing information.

The court ordered the applications to be heard together and permitted counsel to access the private Record of Proceedings upon signing an undertaking.

The court denied a request to allow Toronto Star representatives access to the private record.

The court also ruled that the applicant physicians could not remain completely anonymous to the court; their identities must be filed under seal, and generalized, non-identifying demographic information must be made public.

The accused, charged with second degree murder following a vehicular confrontation with a pedestrian, applied for release on bail pending trial.

The Crown conceded that the accused met his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court granted the application and ordered the accused's release on a $200,000 recognizance with strict conditions, including house arrest and supervision by named sureties, to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) relating to investigative detention at the hospital and the Over 80 charge was dismissed.

The trial proceeded on the impaired driving charge.

The court found that civilian witnesses provided credible evidence of the accident, the accused's identity as the driver, and indicia of impairment including stumbling, smell of alcohol, and unresponsiveness.

The court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and that the Crown proved all essential elements of impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conviction was entered.

The respondent, biological father of a child born in 2005, brought a motion to change a 2006 custody and access order that granted the applicant (mother) sole custody and the respondent no access.

The respondent sought to establish access with himself and his family.

The court found that the respondent failed to meet the threshold test under section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as he did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests.

The court found the respondent's true motivation was to control and harass the applicant, not to establish a genuine relationship with the child.

The motion was dismissed and the original order was upheld.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for trial on charges including kidnapping and multiple firearm offences.

The case was entirely circumstantial and relied on cell phone tower evidence, a firearm magazine found at the scene, and the ownership of a vehicle linked to the incident.

The court held there was sufficient evidence capable of supporting a reasonable inference of the applicant’s involvement in the kidnapping for the purpose of committal.

However, the preliminary inquiry judge erred in concluding that the presence of a firearm magazine supported an inference that a firearm was used during the offence.

As there was no evidentiary foundation capable of satisfying a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was used, the firearm-related committals were quashed while the kidnapping and related offences remained.

The applicant brought an application to stay his criminal charges, arguing that the 32-month delay to trial violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the chronology of the proceedings, attributing portions of the delay to intake, institutional delay, and the applicant's tactical decisions regarding the preliminary hearing.

The court concluded that the total institutional delay of 17.75 months across two levels of court was within administrative guidelines and that the prejudice suffered by the applicant was largely inherent to being charged with serious offences.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent in a family proceeding brought a motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered against residential property, arguing the applicant had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land.

The applicant asserted a constructive, resulting, or implied trust based on unjust enrichment arising from an eight‑year cohabitation during which she performed domestic and caregiving roles that allegedly enabled the respondent to focus on his business activities.

Applying the test under s. 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act and the principles in Kerr v. Baranow, the court held that although the claim appeared weak, it was not devoid of merit and constituted a reasonable claim to an interest in land.

The court further exercised its equitable discretion to maintain the certificate, noting evidence that the moving party had previously engaged in sham transfers and asset shielding.

The motion to discharge the Certificate of Pending Litigation was dismissed.

A family law trial addressing financial issues following separation, including child support obligations, section 7 expenses, property equalization, and ancillary parenting matters.

The court considered whether a step-parent standing in loco parentis should pay full guideline child support for a child with a living biological father who was not pursued for support.

Applying section 5 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court reduced the step-parent’s support obligation for that child while ordering full guideline support for the parties’ biological child.

The court also allocated section 7 expenses including child care, dental costs, and post-secondary education contributions, and resolved numerous equalization disputes concerning investment accounts, vehicles, and other assets.

An equalization payment was ordered and a divorce judgment granted.

Following a family law motion concerning custody, access, sale of the matrimonial home, and child support contributions, the responding party sought costs.

The court considered the relative success of the parties, noting that the moving party had sought to change the child’s primary residence and obtain joint custody but was unsuccessful, while the responding party obtained sole custody and succeeded on other issues including childcare contributions.

The court also considered that the motion primarily concerned the child and that the moving party appeared motivated by a genuine desire to maintain a strong relationship with the child.

Balancing these factors and the financial obligations imposed by the underlying order, the court awarded partial indemnity costs rather than the full amount claimed.

In a family law motion involving custody, access, support, and property issues, the court considered conflicting affidavit evidence from both parties concerning the care of a young child and financial matters.

The court granted a temporary order awarding sole custody to the mother and expanded daytime access to the father, finding the arrangement consistent with the child’s best interests pending questioning and further disclosure.

The court also ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, directed that sale proceeds be held in trust, and required the father to provide access to the home for inspection and retrieval of personal belongings.

Existing child support and daycare contribution obligations were continued.

The order was expressly temporary and subject to revision after examinations and financial disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to set aside a consent order he had previously signed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's thorough reasons and dismissed the appeal.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000, to be paid out of funds held in court along with previous costs awards.