Tony S.K. Wong

A journalist made a freedom of information request for anonymized data from police databases to investigate racial profiling.

The police refused, arguing that extracting the data required creating a new algorithm, which meant the requested information was not a 'record' under s. 2(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator ordered the police to respond to the request, but the Divisional Court quashed the order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the adjudicator's order, holding that where requested information can be produced from an institution's existing computer software by means of technical expertise normally used by it, it constitutes a record under the Act.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding a confidentiality regime in Advocis disciplinary proceedings.

The Court of Appeal varied the order to hold the parties to their undertaking to be bound by the confidentiality regime, subject to specific exclusions defined in their agreement.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the appellants.

The appellant appealed his speeding convictions, arguing that speeding should be classified as a strict liability offence rather than absolute liability, and that absolute liability violates his section 7 Charter liberty interest.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that speeding remains an absolute liability offence in Ontario.

The Court also held that legislative amendments to the Provincial Offences Act separating default proceedings from the original trial make the risk of imprisonment sufficiently remote that section 7 is not engaged.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was awarded disbursements.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $90,000 in general damages for defamation arising from a newspaper article.

The article reported on a mistrial in a murder case, suggesting the respondent, a senior government official, had improperly pressured a forensic scientist to change his evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the article was defamatory and that the defence of absolute privilege under s. 4(1) of the Libel and Slander Act did not apply because the report was not a fair and accurate account of the proceedings.

The court also dismissed the cross-appeal seeking increased and punitive damages, finding the damage award appropriate and no malice established.

The appellants, who are police officers, brought a defamation action against the Toronto Star regarding articles about systemic racism and racial profiling by the Toronto Police.

The motions judge struck the claim, finding it plain and obvious that the articles could not reasonably be understood to refer to the appellants as individuals.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that defamation is a personal tort and the articles used general language without identifying any particular officer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Crown appealed an order quashing a sealing order on search warrants and informations related to an investigation into a meat packing plant.

The Court of Appeal found that the original judge committed a jurisdictional error by denying a media representative an adjournment to seek counsel.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck framework, the Court held that a sealing order was not justified merely to prevent the potential tainting of witness statements, but was necessary to protect the identity of a confidential informant.

The appeal was allowed to a very limited extent to permit further redactions to the informations before their public release.