Sara Blake

The respondents brought a motion to strike out a notice of intervention filed by the Attorney General of Ontario in an appeal from a judicial review decision.

The respondents argued that section 9(4) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act only grants the Attorney General the right to intervene in the original application, not on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that section 9(4) is broad enough to encompass appeals, allowing the Attorney General to intervene as of right to fulfill their role as guardian of the public interest.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an order by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner to produce records relating to physician remuneration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the phrase 'labour relations' in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is not restricted to employer/employee relationships.

The court held that the relationship between the government and physicians, including the work of the Physician Services Committee, falls within 'labour relations', exempting the requested records from the Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a proposed landfill expansion.

The core issue was the interpretation of section 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically whether the phrase 'other than' meant 'in addition to' or 'different from' the standard requirements.

The Divisional Court held that 'other than' means 'in addition to', requiring the proponent to fulfill the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements listed in section 6.1(2).

The Minister's decision approving the Terms of Reference was quashed.

The Minister of Health and Long Term Care appealed a decision of the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the disclosure of records of the Physician Services Committee.

The Minister argued the records were exempt under the 'labour relations' provision in s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner that 'labour relations' refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees.

Since members of the Ontario Medical Association are not employees of the Ministry, the exemption did not apply.

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying him standing at an ongoing inquest.

The coroner found the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for standing under either the public law or private law tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the coroner's decision was entitled to curial deference and was not unreasonable.

The court emphasized the need to avoid interrupting the ongoing statutory hearing and found no serious error in principle that would justify interference.

The appellant, having been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the motion by the Attorney General to quash the stated case, in obtaining leave to appeal, and on the appeal itself, sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellant payable by the Attorney General on a partial indemnity basis.

Recognizing that the central issue was addressed three times and was not unduly complex, the court fixed a global amount of $18,000 for fees and $5,000 for disbursements.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring that the sale of Hydro One shares by the Crown contravened s. 48(1) of the Electricity Act.

Before the appeal was heard, the government withdrew the public offering and enacted new legislation repealing s. 48(1) and expressly authorizing the sale of the shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the legal and factual foundation of the dispute had disappeared and that the circumstances did not justify an exception to the general rule against hearing moot appeals.

The Ontario Energy Board stated a case to the Divisional Court regarding the applicability of O. Reg. 365/00 to applications under s. 92 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court quashed the stated case, finding the Board was functus officio, had not made necessary findings of fact, and lacked jurisdiction to ask if a regulation is valid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 32(1) allows the Board to state a case even if not tied to a pending application, does not strictly require prior findings of fact, and permits questions regarding the boundaries of the Board's jurisdiction.

Three requesters sought access to information in the possession of Ontario government ministries.

The ministries denied access, claiming the records were excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under ss. 65(6)1 and 65(6)3.

The Assistant Privacy Commissioner ruled the Act applied, interpreting 'interest' as a 'legal interest' and finding no current or anticipated proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the ministries' application for judicial review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the standard of review is correctness.

The Court found the Commissioner erred by restricting 'interest' to 'legal interest' and by introducing a time element into the exclusions.

The appeal was allowed and the Commissioner's decisions were quashed.