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.

The CBC made a freedom of information request for mandate letters sent by the Premier of Ontario to Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet Office refused disclosure, claiming the letters were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the letters did not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that the Commissioner's interpretation of s. 12(1) and its application to the mandate letters were reasonable.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision ordering the disclosure of the Premier's mandate letters to Cabinet ministers.

The Cabinet Office opposed disclosure, claiming the letters were exempt under the Cabinet records exemption in s. 12(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the IPC's decision.

The court found it was reasonable for the IPC to conclude that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that disclosing the mandate letters would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.

The court issued a case management endorsement providing procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The parties were directed to agree on time allocations for oral argument, file agreements or materials regarding costs, and submit counsel sheets.

The court also noted that an amended version of a prior endorsement would be released to correct unintended repetition and add a neutral citation.

A case management endorsement setting out directions for a virtual hearing via Zoom before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided a schedule for the service of materials and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an Adjudicator with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which found that the Toronto Police Service had conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to his access request.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of gang stalking and mind control, and argued that the police failed to produce records documenting these activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the Adjudicator's decision, no breach of procedural fairness, and declining to consider Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of commercial benchmarking data provided to the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misapprehended evidence and applied too high a standard of proof for the third-party records exemption under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm to its competitive position if the redacted information was disclosed.

The applicant ministry sought judicial review of an order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring disclosure of the full names of Family Responsibility Office employees contained in a requester’s file.

The ministry argued the information was excluded from disclosure under s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as relating to labour relations matters, or alternatively exempt under ss. 14(1)(e) and 20 due to safety concerns.

The Divisional Court held the IPC reasonably concluded the records were created in the course of the institution’s operational mandate rather than about labour relations, and therefore were not excluded from the Act.

The court also found no evidence that disclosure to the requester posed a safety risk to the employees and determined that compliance with the IPC order would not conflict with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order governing employee identification practices.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant had requested security footage and reports from the University of Ottawa regarding an alleged attempted theft of his backpack.

The adjudicator upheld the University's decision to withhold portions of the records, finding that the search was reasonable, there was no obligation to provide certified copies, and the withheld records contained personal information of third parties whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of the base salaries of the Chief of Police and two deputies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the compelling public interest in transparency outweighed the limited privacy interests of the affected parties, even though their total income was already disclosed under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator reasonably balanced the competing interests and his decision was owed deference.

The City of Kitchener sought judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of certain records relating to a land purchase and reducing the search fee charged to the requestor.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decisions regarding the fee reduction and the rejection of the third-party information exemption as reasonable.

The Court also agreed that communications between the City Solicitor and the third-party developer were not protected by solicitor-client privilege, but allowed the application in part on consent to exempt specific internal communications that had been incorrectly categorized.

The appellant Ministry appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Commissioner had ordered the disclosure of a record containing the first three characters of Ontario postal codes and the corresponding number of registered sex offenders residing in each area.

The Ministry argued the record was exempt from disclosure under s. 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming it could lead to identifying offenders' whereabouts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that the Commissioner's conclusion was reasonable, as the Ministry failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its concerns.

The requester sought records relating to advice given to the Minister of Finance regarding amendments to the Corporations Tax Act.

The Ministry refused disclosure under s. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained advice or recommendations.

The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding no evidence the records went to the final decision-maker and that they did not suggest a single course of action.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the adjudicator's interpretation unreasonable, holding that s. 13(1) protects the deliberative process, including drafts and options, without requiring proof of delivery to the ultimate decision-maker or a single recommended course of action.

The requester sought access to documents relating to advice given to the Minister of Finance regarding the effective date of amendments to the Corporations Tax Act.

The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that the 'advice or recommendations' exemption under s. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply because the documents did not suggest a single course of action and there was no proof they were communicated to the final decision-maker.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the adjudicator's interpretation of s. 13(1) was unreasonable as it failed to protect the deliberative process and the range of options presented to a decision-maker.

The City of Vaughan sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of an employee's entry and exit points on the 407 ETR highway.

The City had reimbursed the employee for the toll charges but redacted the location and timing data from the disclosed invoices, arguing it was personal information.

The Commissioner found that while it was personal information, it fell under the exception for information disclosing an employee 'benefit' under s. 14(4)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the entry and exit points defined the quantum of the benefit and were subject to disclosure to ensure government accountability.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of six records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the records were exempt under s. 13(1) as they contained advice or recommendations of a public servant.

The Divisional Court upheld the Adjudicator's decision to release Records I to V, finding it reasonable that they did not contain a recommended course of action.

However, the court overturned the decision regarding Record VI, finding that the proposed redactions clearly contained advice and recommendations and were therefore exempt from disclosure.

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of severed portions of statistical reports regarding court activity.

The reports were created by the Ministry at the request of the Chief Justice.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commissioner erred in finding the reports were under the Ministry's 'control', the reports were nonetheless in the Ministry's 'custody' because they were integrated into the Ministry's operations and used for its own core functions.

The court concluded that disclosing the severed portions would not compromise judicial independence and dismissed the application.

The City of Waterloo applied for judicial review of two orders made by delegates of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which required the City to disclose the total dollar amount of its legal bills.

The City argued the adjudicators exceeded their jurisdiction by failing to find the records were protected by solicitor-client privilege under s. 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the adjudicators correctly decided the cases on their facts rather than on inapplicable hypothetical scenarios.