ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, MATLOW AND JENNINGS JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Applicant
- and -
TOM MITCHINSON, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner, and JOHN DOE, Requester
Respondents
Sara Blake, for the Attorney General, Applicant
William S. Challis and John Higgins, for the Respondents, Commissioner
HEARD: June 30, 2004
O’driscoll J.: (Orally)
1This morning, at the resumption of this application for Judicial Review brought by the Attorney General of Ontario, the members of the panel have posed to counsel the following question: This requester was a complainant and a member of Helpline. Helpline had a solicitor/ counsel throughout. Helpline’s counsel was a party to the negotiations and made a commitment. All of the parties made commitments to each other that the negotiations and any document generated and shared amongst the parties would be kept in confidence.
2Assuming that to be so, our question is, “Why should this requester be at liberty to bring an application under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, which, if successful, would permit the requester to breach his undertaking given by his lawyer?”
3It will be recalled that in the submissions forwarded to the Commissioner, sent by letter dated November 28, 2000, signed by the co-ordinator, Ruth Maillard with the submissions themselves signed by T.C. Marshall, Q.C., on behalf of the Attorney General, it states:
“It is clear that the parties, including Helpline, intended the negotiations and any document generated and shared amongst the parties, in accordance with the practice and procedures agreed upon, to be kept in confidence. This was a commitment agreed upon by all the participants.”
4The members of the panel having asked this question of counsel today, we also ask: “Do counsel wish us to adjourn this proceeding so that he/she/they would be in a better position to answer the question?” We should tell you that, in our view, the answer to this question that we pose this morning may well be pivotal to the outcome of this application.
5At counsel’s request, this application is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.
O’DRISCOLL J.
MATLOW J.
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 30, 2004
Date of Release: July 15, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 204/02
DATE: 20040630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, MATLOW AND JENNINGS JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Applicant
- and -
TOM MITCHINSON, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner, and JOHN DOE, Requester
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’DRISCOLL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 30, 2004
Date of Release: July 15, 2004