Linda Hsiao-Chia Chen

The self-represented appellant attempted to appeal a single Divisional Court judge's direction made during a judicial review proceeding concerning a freedom of information disclosure dispute.

The court held that no appeal as of right lay to the Court of Appeal from that direction.

Depending on whether the order was made on a motion, the proper route was either a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act or, otherwise, a leave appeal under s. 6(1)(a).

Because the notice of appeal clearly failed to engage the court's jurisdiction, the proceeding was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant sought to withhold 23 mandate letters delivered by the Premier of Ontario to each minister upon forming government in 2018, claiming exemption under s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as Cabinet records that would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the letters were non-exempt outcomes of the Premier's deliberative process rather than records revealing the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the IPC failed to give meaningful weight to the constitutional conventions of Cabinet confidentiality, the fluid and dynamic nature of the Cabinet decision-making process, and the central role of the Premier within that process.

The Court found the mandate letters were revealing of the substance of Cabinet deliberations, both on their face and when compared against subsequent government action, and that the IPC's narrow interpretation of s. 12(1) was unreasonable.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the disclosure of a KPMG forensic investigation report prepared for Algoma Public Health concerning potential conflicts of interest in the hiring of an interim Chief Financial Officer with a criminal record.

The report contained personal information of Dr. Kim Barker, the former Medical Officer of Health and Chief Executive Officer.

The Commissioner found that although the personal information was exempt from disclosure under section 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the public interest override under section 16 applied, warranting full disclosure.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commissioner's decisions, finding the reasons inadequate because the Commissioner failed to identify each piece of protected personal information and separately weigh it against the public interest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner's reasons were adequate and his decision reasonable, rejecting the requirement for a piece-by-piece analysis in all circumstances.