Paul B. Schabas

A reporter for the Toronto Star requested access to the names of the top 100 physician billers to the Ontario Health Insurance Program for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, along with their medical specialties and billing amounts.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that physicians' names in this context were not personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Ontario Medical Association and two groups of physicians appealed, arguing that physicians' names constitute personal information and are therefore exempt from disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the billing information, representing gross professional revenue before business expenses, did not reveal something of a personal nature about the physicians.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $65,981.09.

The court found the plaintiff's claim improper and vexatious, constituting a collateral attack on prior Italian and Ontario enforcement judgments.

The court accepted the defendants' claimed time and hourly rates, finding minor duplication between senior and junior counsel necessary and not warranting a discount.

The court deemed the defendants' overall costs claim reasonable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties, fixing costs at $65,981.09, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Gregory King, brought claims against Italian lawyers and their firm (the Italian Defendants) alleging conflict of interest and misconduct in prior Italian legal proceedings that resulted in a judgment against King.

The Italian Defendants moved to dismiss King's claims for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court found no real and substantial connection between King's claims and Ontario, as the alleged conduct occurred in Italy, the defendants did not carry on business in Ontario, and any related contract was primarily Italian.

The court also determined that Italy was clearly the more convenient forum, given the location of witnesses, applicable Italian law, and the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

Consequently, the court dismissed King's entire action against the Italian Defendants.

The applicant, who was separately indicted for first-degree murder, sought a partial or delayed publication ban on her anticipated testimony at her co-accused's trial.

She argued that pre-trial publicity and media reports of her evidence would taint the jury pool for her upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding no real and substantial risk to her fair trial rights.

The court held that reasonable alternative measures, such as the challenge for cause process and strong judicial directions to the jury, were sufficient to ensure an impartial jury.

In six Ontario libel actions tied to statements posted by a U.S. company and later republished in Ontario newspapers, the appellants argued Ontario lacked jurisdiction or should defer to Illinois.

The Court held that defamation was presumptively connected to Ontario because publication occurred there through reading, downloading, and republication.

It concluded the appellants did not rebut jurisdiction and did not prove Illinois was clearly the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.