William Stephen Challis

This appeal concerned a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) regarding LCBO theft/shoplifting incidents.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) had ordered the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) to disclose the records, but the Divisional Court set aside that order, finding the adjudicator's decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal, stepping into the Divisional Court's shoes, found the IPC adjudicator's decision to be reasonable.

The court affirmed that the adjudicator correctly applied the "reasonable expectation of probable harm" standard of proof for FIPPA exemptions and that her reasons were adequate, even with confidentiality constraints.

The Court also declined to consider new statutory arguments not raised before the adjudicator.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the IPC's original disclosure order.

The appellant sought to withhold 23 mandate letters delivered by the Premier of Ontario to each minister upon forming government in 2018, claiming exemption under s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as Cabinet records that would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the letters were non-exempt outcomes of the Premier's deliberative process rather than records revealing the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the IPC failed to give meaningful weight to the constitutional conventions of Cabinet confidentiality, the fluid and dynamic nature of the Cabinet decision-making process, and the central role of the Premier within that process.

The Court found the mandate letters were revealing of the substance of Cabinet deliberations, both on their face and when compared against subsequent government action, and that the IPC's narrow interpretation of s. 12(1) was unreasonable.

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.