John Swaigen

The applicant school board brought a motion to exclude the public, specifically the requester, from the hearing of an application involving sealed materials.

The applicant argued that the requester's presence would render the application moot by revealing the subject matter and that referring to sealed materials without reading them would inhibit counsel's effectiveness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the normal practice of referring the court to sealed materials without reading them aloud is sufficient and does not inhibit counsel.

The court emphasized that access to the court is a super-ordinate value under s. 135 of the Courts of Justice Act and there was no serious risk of injustice.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of records concerning a student's behaviour to the student's father.

The board argued the records were exempt under s. 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was not unreasonable for the adjudicator to conclude the board failed to discharge its burden of proof, given the lack of evidence of threatening behaviour by the father or psychiatric evidence regarding the son's propensity to carry out past threats.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding fee estimates and time extensions for producing records.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was procedural in nature and fell squarely within the Commissioner's expertise.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found the decision was not irrational and dismissed the application.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner moved for an order sealing the private part of its record pending a judicial review application.

The underlying application was brought by a requester seeking access to police and securities commission records regarding allegations of his involvement in organized crime.

The sealing order was not opposed, but the requester's counsel sought access to the sealed record subject to a confidentiality undertaking to prepare for the judicial review.

The police and securities commission opposed access, citing the extreme sensitivity of the intelligence records.

The court granted access to the requester's counsel, finding that the benefit of full and informed submissions outweighed the risks of disclosure, provided counsel signed an expanded undertaking not to act for the client in any other proceeding arising out of the information.