Toronto Economic Development Corp. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al., (2008) 238 O.A.C. 88 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Cronk, Gillese and Armstrong, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 ONCA 366
• Citation: (2008), 238 O.A.C. 88 (CA),2008 ONCA 366,292 DLR (4th) 706,[2008] OJ No 1799 (QL),166 ACWS (3d) 208,238 OAC 88,45 MPLR (4th) 1,238 O.A.C. 88,292 D.L.R. (4th) 706,[2008] O.J. No 1799 (QL),(2008), 238 OAC 88 (CA)
• Date: 09 November 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Economic Dev. Corp. v. Privacy Commr. (2008), 238 O.A.C. 88 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.037

City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (respondent/appellant) and Showline Limited (respondent/respondent in appeal) and City of Toronto (respondent/respondent in appeal)

City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (respondent/respondent in appeal) and Showline Limited (respondent/appellant) and City of Toronto (respondent/respondent in appeal)

(C46850; C46883; 2008 ONCA 366)

Indexed As: Toronto Economic Development Corp. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Cronk, Gillese and Armstrong, JJ.A.

May 8, 2008.

Summary:

An adjudicator determined that the Toronto Economic Development Corp. (TEDCO) was deemed to be part of the City of Toronto by virtue of s. 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that TEDCO's records were in the custody or control of the city under s. 4(1) for the purpose of making an access decision under Part I of the Act. TEDCO applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Chipnik, J., dissenting, in a decision reported 226 O.A.C. 132, allowed the application and quashed the decision below. The court declared that TEDCO was not subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner et al. appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the decision of the Divisional Court and restored the decision of the adjudicator.

Municipal Law - Topic 1302

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Legislation (incl. applicability) - Toronto Economic Development Corp (TEDCO) was incorporated by the City of Toronto under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, with share capital, as authorized under s. 9 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985 (a private act) - TEDCO had a board of eleven directors appointed by city bylaw - The number of shares of TEDCO was restricted to one share, its sole shareholder being the city - TEDCO was incorporated to provide, operate and improve sites, buildings and facilities for and make loans in relation to industrial operations - TEDCO owned more than 400 acres of real property in the Toronto Port Lands - TEDCO's transactions were not subject to city approval - An adjudicator determined that TEDCO was deemed to be part of the City of Toronto by virtue of s. 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that TEDCO's records were in the custody or control of the city under s. 4(1) for the purpose of making an access decision under Part I of the Act - TEDCO applied for judicial review - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application and declared that TEDCO was not subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - The Information and Privacy Commissioner et al. appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the adjudicator - See paragraphs 1 to 45.

Municipal Law - Topic 1302

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Legislation (incl. applicability) - Section 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act set out certain bodies that were considered to be part of a municipality for purposes of the Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal, in interpreting s. 2(3), adopted the modern approach to statutory interpretation postulated by Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed.) - See paragraphs 26 to 44.

Municipal Law - Topic 1303

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Municipality - What constitutes - [See both Municipal Law - Topic 1302 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - [See second Municipal Law - Topic 1302 ].

Words and Phrases

Authority - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "authority" as used in s. 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56 - See paragraphs 34 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Walmsley v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al. (1997), 101 O.A.C. 140; 34 O.R.(3d) 611 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

York Condominium Corp. No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Ltd. et al. (2007), 220 O.A.C. 311; 84 O.R.(3d) 414 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Audet (Y.) (1996), 197 N.R. 172; 175 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 446 A.P.R. 81; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 20 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56, sect. 2(3) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 27].

Counsel:

David Goodis, for the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario;

Andrew M. Robinson, for Showline Limited;

George H. Rust-D'Eye and Kim Mullin, for the City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation.

These appeals were heard on November 9, 2007, by Cronk, Gillese and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered on May 8, 2008, by Armstrong, J.A.