Shirley Senoff

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of two orders by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of the total amounts paid by the Ministry for court-ordered legal representation of certain individuals in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry argued the records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act due to solicitor-client privilege and the protection of personal privacy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner was correct in determining that the aggregate fee amounts were neutral information not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that the Commissioner's decision that the disclosure would not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was reasonable.

The applicant applied for judicial review to quash an adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of records relating to the costs of bringing witnesses from India to Canada for a murder trial.

The adjudicator had ordered the records disclosed with the witnesses' names and signatures expunged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator reasonably interpreted and applied the exemptions under the applicable legislation and correctly found that the exemption under s. 19 did not apply.

The moving parties brought a motion to have four applications heard together.

The applications all involved the interpretation of section 13 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding 'advice or recommendations' in different factual contexts.

The court found that hearing the applications together would be in the interests of justice and would not cause substantial prejudice or inconvenience.

The motion was granted and the applications were ordered to be heard together.

A journalist requested an electronic database of municipal election campaign contributors from the City of Toronto to investigate potential breaches of contribution limits.

The City and the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner refused disclosure, citing privacy exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Commissioner erred in interpreting the Municipal Elections Act, finding the database was a public record prepared under the Act.

The Court further held that the Commissioner's decisions on the privacy exemption and public interest override were unreasonable, as the public interest in scrutinizing the democratic process outweighed the minimal privacy intrusion of disclosing contributors' telephone numbers.

The application was allowed and the database ordered disclosed.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of the top ten medical procedures billed to OHIP by the highest-billing general practitioner in Toronto.

The Ministry argued the records constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the physician was not identifiable from the requested records.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The requester, an insurance company, sought access to Crown files prepared for a criminal prosecution under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The Attorney General refused disclosure, and an Inquiry Officer ordered partial disclosure, finding that litigation privilege under s. 19 of FIPPA terminated when the criminal proceedings ended.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Inquiry Officer's interpretation of s. 19 was unreasonable and wrong in law, as the statutory exemption for records prepared by Crown counsel for litigation does not incorporate common law limitations on litigation privilege.

The Attorney General's application was allowed, and the requester's application regarding privacy exemptions under s. 21 was dismissed.