Trevor Winter

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) order requiring the disclosure of a joint venture agreement and payment records to a requester under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 17(1) as trade secrets and that the IPC breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's process was fair and its conclusion that the agreement was mutually negotiated rather than 'supplied in confidence' was reasonable.

The court also declined to consider a new argument under s. 17(2) that was not raised before the adjudicator.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in an action seeking specific performance of a purported oral commercial lease.

The court had previously determined that the matter could not be fairly resolved on summary judgment and directed that it proceed to an expedited trial.

In determining costs, the court considered that a significant portion of the defendants’ preparation and cross-examinations would benefit the upcoming trial and should not be fully compensated at this stage.

The court therefore limited the recoverable costs to reasonable amounts for the motion itself.

Specific costs were fixed for each group of defendants’ counsel, with limited disbursements allowed.