Lang J.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Commissioner had ordered the Ministry to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to a settlement with an individual, interpreting s. 21(5) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as requiring a two-part test.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commissioner's interpretation was unreasonable and clearly wrong, as the plain language of s. 21(5) does not require the institution to prove that disclosing the mere existence of the record would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a proposed landfill expansion.

The core issue was the interpretation of section 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically whether the phrase 'other than' meant 'in addition to' or 'different from' the standard requirements.

The Divisional Court held that 'other than' means 'in addition to', requiring the proponent to fulfill the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements listed in section 6.1(2).

The Minister's decision approving the Terms of Reference was quashed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments for a shopping mall for the 1996 and 1997 taxation years.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to use a recent arm's length sale price as the best evidence of market value, and by applying a 'current value' approach rather than a 'market value' approach.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's treatment of the recent sale was a question of mixed fact and law and thus not appealable.

However, the Court found the Board erred in law by applying a 'current value' (unencumbered fee simple) approach, which was introduced by 1997 amendments not applicable to the years in question.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination based on the correct 'market value' test.