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 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.

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.