L. Murray

A reporter requested the names, billing amounts, and specialties of the top 100 physicians billing OHIP.

The Ministry refused to disclose the names, but the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the information was not 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Medical Association and affected physicians sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Adjudicator's conclusion that OHIP payments revealed professional rather than personal information was reasonable.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario and a group of affected physicians brought procedural motions in three related applications for judicial review concerning an order to release physician billing information.

The court ordered the applications to be heard together and permitted counsel to access the private Record of Proceedings upon signing an undertaking.

The court denied a request to allow Toronto Star representatives access to the private record.

The court also ruled that the applicant physicians could not remain completely anonymous to the court; their identities must be filed under seal, and generalized, non-identifying demographic information must be made public.

The moving party, applicants, and respondents sought a consent order to add another physician to a judicial review application under a pseudonym.

The court declined to grant the order, noting that notice to the media is generally required before granting any form of publication ban or anonymity order.

The court also raised concerns about the current title of proceedings, which listed the applicants as 'Several Physicians Affected Directly by the Order' without any identifying information in the court file.

The parties were directed to bring a formal motion with notice to the media.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of two orders by an adjudicator of the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of records relating to the municipality's IT system and service contracts.

The municipality had denied access to portions of the records, claiming various exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator's decisions that the exemptions for third party information, advice and recommendations, security, and valuable government information did not apply were reasonable.