4 total
Costs of $15,000 awarded to the successful applicant following an application for judicial review.
The Toronto Police Services Board was successful in its application to quash an order issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The Board sought costs against the respondent, James Rankin.
The Divisional Court rejected the respondent's arguments that he was successful on the majority of issues and that the matter was novel and of public interest.
Costs were awarded to the Board on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $15,000.
IPC order quashed for failing to consider if requested electronic records could be produced using normal institutional means.
A journalist requested electronic data from the police board's databases, asking that names be replaced with randomly-generated unique numbers.
The board refused, arguing this would require the creation of a new record.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the board to issue access decisions.
On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the Commissioner's order, finding that the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider whether the requested record could be produced by means 'normally used by the institution' as required by section 2(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Defamation appeal dismissed; article reasonably interpreted as reporting complaints rather than asserting truth of allegations.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her defamation action against a newspaper and its reporters.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a reasonable reader would interpret the article as reporting complaints rather than asserting the truth of the allegations.
The appeal was dismissed.
Third party's request for formal confidentiality undertaking denied; prior direction limiting use of disclosed information deemed sufficient.
In a discharge grievance involving allegations that the grievor improperly obtained air miles, the Union sought disclosure of the Employer's cost per reward mile.
The Employer and a third party, Loyalty Management Group Canada Inc., argued the information was highly confidential.
The Vice Chair directed the Employer to disclose the information to the Union, subject to a condition that it only be used for the arbitration proceeding.
The third party subsequently requested that the Union and grievor be required to execute a formal Undertaking with a liquidated damages clause.
The Vice Chair dismissed the third party's request, finding that the previous direction was sufficient to protect the confidential information and consistent with the Board's general approach.
