Goetze v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3825

CITATION: Goetze v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3825

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 505/24

DATE: 20260702

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: HANS GOETZE, Applicant

AND:

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO and DR. BARRY EMARA, Respondents

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Mr Goetze, self-represented

Brendan Gray, for the IPCO

Matthew K. Dale, for Dr Emara

HEARD in writing: June 30, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

D.L. Corbett J.

1By motion decision dated March 25, 2026, I largely dismissed Mr Goetze’s motion for sealing and anonymization, without prejudice to his seeking further such relief from the application panel, and I gave scheduling directions which included a deadline for Mr Goetze to serve and file his application record and factum. The material directions included:

Mr Goetze shall serve and file his Application Record and Factum for the Application by June 26, 2026. I have given Mr Goetze more time than usual to deliver his materials in recognition of his self-represented status. Mr Goetze should not expect that the court will be readily willing to extend this deadline, particularly if an extension request is not made well before the deadline, rather than at the last minute or after the deadline has passed.

This gave Mr Goetze about three months to deliver his application materials, two months after the IPCO delivered the Record of Proceedings.

2By email from counsel for the IPCO dated June 10, 2026, the court was advised as follows:

Pursuant to Justice Corbett’s endorsement dated March 25, 2026 (attached), the IPC served and filed its record of proceedings in this application for judicial review by April 24, 2026. Justice Corbett’s endorsement also required the Applicant, Hans Goetze, to serve and file his Application Record and Factum by June 26, 2026. Recently, Mr. Goetze has indicated that he is attempting to seek leave to appeal Justice Corbett’s endorsement to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. While Mr. Goetze has served a Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal, we understand it has not yet been filed with the Court of Appeal. It appears that Mr. Goetze does not intend to serve and file his Application Record and Factum by June 26, 2026. Further, so far as we are aware, Mr. Goetze has not sought a stay of Justice Corbett’s order.

Given the circumstances, we believe we are required to advise the Court of the present status of this matter and seek the Court’s direction. From the perspective of the respondents, it would appear that Mr. Goetze should continue to be required to serve and file his Application Record and Factum by June 26, 2026 unless and until Mr. Goetze seeks and obtains a stay.

3By email sent to the parties on June 11, 2026, the court directed as follows:

This court’s decisions are not stayed pending a motion for leave to the appeal to the Court of Appeal or pending a review motion to a panel of this court. Mr Goetz is required to comply with the scheduling deadlines that have been imposed. If Mr Goetz requires a short extension the court will consider such a request, if it is made before the deadline expires.

4Mr Goetze responded to this direction in a long email on June 15th in which (among other things) he stated:

a. This court had “forfeit[ed] any jurisdiction” as a result of “open bias” respecting the direction of March 26, 2026

b. The direction was a “further contempt” of Mr Goetze

c. “We go forward to the Court of Appeal”.

5Mr Goetze is not entitled to disregard the court’s directions because he disagrees with them, thinks they are wrong, or thinks they are tainted by an appearance of bias. Mr Goetze is not entitled to disregard the court’s directions because he pursues appeal or review proceedings from the court’s directions unless and until a stay has been granted.

6The court has not been provided with an order from the Court of Appeal or from a judge or panel of the Divisional Court staying this court’s scheduling directions.

7This application has already been delayed seriously because Mr Goetze would not follow directions he was given. Some of the history is set out in my directions of March 25, 2026, which includes the following:

a. The impugned IPC decision was made about two years ago, on June 28, 2024;

b. Mr Goetze initially appealed. There is no right of appeal from the impugned decision. O’Brien J. struck the Notice of Appeal, permitted Mr Goetze to deliver a Notice of application, and set a schedule that would have seen the application heard by a panel of this court about a year ago, in July 2025.

c. Mr Goetze failed to deliver his Notice of Application as directed and was given multiple fresh deadlines, finally delivering his Notice of Application in November 2025, sixteen months after the date of the impugned decision.

d. The Notice of Application is prolix and largely incoherent. It seeks remedies that are not available in this court and fails to address the central issue that is available on an application to review the impugned decision. As stated in my direction of March 25, 2026, para. 14:

Thus, the application before this court is concerned, not with the underlying merits of Mr Goetze’s request for records, but with the IPC’s discretion not to continue a review into that request on the basis that the issue can and should be addressed in the civil proceedings between the parties. This is a very focused issue for judicial review. The Notice of Application fails to identify this as the issue for judicial review and fails to state any basis upon which a panel of this court could interfere with the IPC’s exercise of discretion.

e. It would have been open to this court to strike the Notice of Application with leave to Mr Goetze to deliver a proper Notice of Application. However, the goal is to decide proceedings on their merits, the application had already been delayed for over twenty months at the pleadings stage, so rather than further disputation over pleadings I directed as follows (at para. 19):

The Notice of Application is improper, but I have identified the issue for the application in these reasons, and the IPC has not requested that the Notice of Application be struck. I would not strike the Notice of Application, in these circumstances, but would direct that the application is restricted to judicial review of the impugned IPC decision. I am satisfied that the panel hearing the application will be able to do that without my requiring Mr Goetze to re-draft his Notice of Application.

f. The motion itself was for a sealing order. The IPC noted that Mr Goetze’s OHIP number was shown on the face of file documents and consented to an order redacting that information, which was made (para. 21). Despite having been given guidance by Faieta J. on what was required for his motion, Mr Goetze did not deliver the required materials, did not provide his materials to the court by filing them through the portal, and delivered a mass of unorganized documents to the court. Rather than adjourning the motion and directing that these problems be cured, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice to Mr Goetze pursuing a request for some sort of sealing order before the panel, to be considered at the same time as the hearing of the main application. This would have put file materials in the public domain until a decision by the panel, but there were no circumstances in this case that caused concern that this would have resulted in real prejudice if the panel subsequently decided to seal some or all of the file.

8The underlying issue is a discretionary decision by the IPC not to investigate Mr Goetze’s complaint because there is another appropriate means for him to address the issues he raises: civil proceedings between himself and Dr Emara. This is not a case where the only interested parties are an applicant and an administrative decision-maker: Mr Goetze’s pursuit of Dr Emara, in multiple fora, over many years, is part of the context in which the court should ensure that the application process is timely.

9Mr Goetze has proven himself ungovernable. The application should be a focused and straightforward one. Multiple judges have tried to assist Mr Goetze to bring his matter forward properly. Repeatedly, he has failed to follow the directions he has been given. As noted at para. 17 of the direction of March 25, 2026:

The court is required to facilitate access to the justice system for self-represented litigants. There is, however, a limit to what the court can do or should attempt to do.

10This court was clear with Mr Goetze that he was required to serve and file his application record and factum by June 26, 2026. On June 11, 2026, the court offered to consider an extension request from him, in case he had mistakenly believed that seeking to bring appeal proceedings would relieve him of the responsibility to follow the court’s directions. His response to this direction was defiant, and, in the result, he did defy the court’s scheduling directions: he has not delivered his application record and factum and he has not requested an extension in order to do so.

11Enough is enough. The application is dismissed for failure to follow the court’s case management directions.

12Mr Goetze’s recourse from this decision is a motion to review it before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, and not an appeal with leave to the Court of Appeal. This information is provided to assist Mr Goetze to navigate the court’s process. If Mr Goetze does bring a review motion in the Divisional Court, it shall be case managed as may be directed by an administrative judge of the Divisional Court.