Children's Lawyer v. Goodis, (2003) 177 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, Lane and Kozak, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: August 14, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2003), 177 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

Children's Lawyer v. Goodis (2003), 177 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.066

Children's Lawyer for Ontario (applicant) v. David Goodis, Senior Adjudicator, Information and Privacy Commissioner and Jane Doe, requester (respondents)

(No. 330/02)

Indexed As: Children's Lawyer for Ontario v. Goodis et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, Lane and Kozak, JJ.

August 14, 2003.

Summary:

Jane Doe, now an adult, received, when she was a child, representation from the Children's Lawyer for Ontario (CLO) with respect to two motor vehicle accident cases and one child protection case. Upon reaching majority, Jane Doe requested "her file" from the CLO. Instead of treating this as a request from a client, the CLO treated it as if it were a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CLO identified 3,700 pages of records, and disclosed all but 933 pages to Jane Doe. The CLO invoked the exemptions in ss. 13 and 19 of FIPPA to justify its non-disclosure of the 933 pages. Jane Doe appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

An adjudicator allowed the appeal and ordered the CLO to disclose all but 38 pages of the records that remained at issue. The adjudicator affirmed his decision after a request for reconsideration by the CLO. The CLO applied for judicial review. The CLO also made a preliminary motion challenging the standing of the Commissioner as a party before the court.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the preliminary motion and the application for judicial review.

Editor's Note: An interlocutory decision between the same parties is reported at [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 11.

Administrative Law - Topic 8843

Boards and tribunals - Capacity or status - To appear before the courts when its deci­sions are under judicial review - The On­tario Divisional Court held s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act entitled the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to be a "party" on any judicial review application regarding a decision or order of the Commissioner - See para­graphs 5 to 52.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1902

Crown counsel - Definition of - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - Jane Doe, now an adult, received, when she was a child, representation from the Children's Lawyer for Ontario (CLO) with respect to two motor vehicle accident cases and one child protection case - Upon reaching majority, Jane Doe requested "her file" from the CLO - The CLO invoked s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and refused to disclose some 933 pages of documents - Section 19 provided an exemption for records that were "created by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation for use in litigation" - An adjudicator for the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario held that s. 19 was unavailable to the CLO and ordered disclosure of all but 38 of the 933 un­disclosed pages - The Ontario Divisional Court, applying the standard of correctness, upheld the adjudicator's decision, holding that the CLO was not "Crown counsel" as that phrase was used in s. 19 - See para­graphs 53 to 102.

Crown - Topic 7208.1

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Advice, pro­posals, analyses or policy options devel­oped for government - Jane Doe, now an adult, received, when she was a child, representation from the Children's Lawyer for Ontario (CLO) with respect to two motor vehicle accident cases and one child protection case - Upon reaching majority, Jane Doe requested "her file" from the CLO - The CLO invoked s. 13 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and refused to dis­close some 933 pages of documents - Section 13 provided an exemption where disclosure "would reveal advice and rec­ommendations of a public servant [or] any other person employed in the service of an institution" - An adjudicator for the Infor­mation and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario held that s. 13 was unavailable to the CLO because the records at issue were prepared by the CLO for the benefit of the "client", rather than for the benefit of the government or the public at large - The adjudicator ordered disclosure of all but 38 of the 933 undisclosed pages - The Ontario Divisional Court, applying the standard of reasonableness, upheld the adjudicator's decision - See paragraphs 103 to 123.

Crown - Topic 7245

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standing of commissioner - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8843 ].

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - [See Crown - Topic 7203 and Crown - Topic 7208.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Doe v. Information and Privacy Commis­sioner (Ont.) (1993), 64 O.A.C. 248; 13 O.R.(3d) 767 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 37].

Workers' Compensation Board (Ont.) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 121; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 41 O.R.(3d) 464 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 38, 114, footnotes 24, 38].

Syndicat national des employés de la Com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 40].

Union des employés de services, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des em­ployés de la Commission scolaire ré­gionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298.

U.E.S. - see Union des employées de service.

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian As­sociation of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Com­mission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 41, 110, footnote 23].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 41].

Dr. Q., Re, (2003), 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 41, 110, footnote 23].

Major Mack Hotel v. Liquor Licence Board (Ont.) (1994), 76 O.A.C. 326 (Div. Ct.), affd. [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2069 et al. (1986), 10 O.A.C. 34; 51 O.R.(2d) 481 (Div. Ct.), revd. (1986), 15 O.A.C. 398; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 444 (C.A.), affd. (1990), 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 46].

General Accident Assurance Co. et al. v. Chrusz et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 45 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 5].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 145; 208 D.L.R.(4th) 327 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 125; 62 O.R.(3d) 167 (C.A.), consd. [para. 68, footnote 6].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des per­mis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 75, footnote 7].

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. N., [2000] O.J. No. 5093 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 11].

Strobridge v. Strobridge (1994), 72 O.A.C. 379; 18 O.R.(3d) 753 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 12].

Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. S.D., [1993] O.J. No. 1148, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 13].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1; 117 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 14].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate (1994), 20 O.R.(3d) 350 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 84, footnote 15].

Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band (2002), 297 N.R. 1; 220 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), consd. [apra. 86, footnote 17].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, consd. [para. 86, foot­note 18].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick (2003), 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 23].

CTV Television Inc. v. Toronto Police Service et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 238 (C.A.), consd. [para. 126, footnote 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-31, sect. 13, sect. 19 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jacobs, L.A., and Kuttner, Thomas S., Discovering what tribunals do: Tribunals' standing before the courts (2002), 81 Can. Bar Rev. 616, generally [para. 42].

Mullan, David, Administrative Law (2001), pp. 457 [para. 50]; 459 [para. 48].

Counsel:

L.M. McIntosh and E. Atkinson, for the Children's Lawyer and for Attorney General of Ontario;

C.D. Bredt, F. Kristjanson and S. Senoff, for the respondent Commissioner;

M.M. Thomson and C. Lonsdale, Amicus Curiae.

This appeal was heard on May 13 and 14, 2003, by O'Driscoll, Lane and Kozak, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court released the fol­lowing decision on August 14, 2003.