Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-04-12 Docket: C62302

Judges: Feldman, Gillese and Pepall JJ.A.

Between

Hydro One Networks Inc. Applicant (Appellant)

and

Ontario Provincial Police Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel

Robert Ryan, for the appellant

Christopher Diana and Hera Evans, for the respondent

Heard

February 3, 2017

On Appeal

On appeal from the order of Justice Gregory M. Mulligan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 19, 2016, with reasons reported at 2016 ONSC 3329.

Endorsement

[1] This endorsement is to be read with the court's endorsement dated February 9, 2017, where the court asked the parties to provide written submissions with respect to its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court has now received and considered the written submissions.

[2] Hydro One appeals the application judge's decision to decline to make a general declaration that the Ontario Provincial Police (the "OPP") is obligated to produce to Hydro One, on request, and when it has suffered a loss as a result of a motor vehicle accident on a highway, a copy of the accident report disclosing the names and addresses of the driver(s) and owner(s), the driver's license number, insurance information and vehicle permit number.

[3] Hydro One notes that s. 200(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA") obligates every person in charge of a vehicle that is involved in an accident on a highway to provide that information on request to anyone who sustains a loss, to the police, and to any witness. Hydro One argues that it cannot take advantage of this provision when it suffers only property loss and no representative is present on the scene to make the request.

[4] In order to obtain the same information from the accident report, it must obtain the accident report from the OPP. The OPP will only produce the report under the authority of a court order (such orders are often made under r. 30 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194) and takes the position that certain privacy provisions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (the "FIPPA") preclude it from otherwise doing so.

[5] In our view, although this court may have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, it is not appropriate to take jurisdiction. Given the consent order, there is no longer any active lis before the court. The general nature of the remaining outstanding relief sought is not supported by any record that sets out the facts and circumstances necessary to provide a context for any decision. Nor are all necessary or potentially interested parties before the court. This includes the Privacy Commissioner, to advise on the nature and role of any relevant privacy issues under FIPPA, the Attorney General to advise on the role of s. 200(1) of the HTA in this context, and a representative of the personal injury bar to advise on the consequences of any such declaration on other potentially affected parties. We would also observe that the parties may wish to consider whether this issue is best addressed by the legislature.

[6] For the above reasons, the appeal is quashed.

K. Feldman J.A.

E.E. Gillese J.A.

S.E. Pepall J.A.