John Doe et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al., (1991) 53 O.A.C. 236 (DC)

• Judge: Steele, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: November 09, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 53 O.A.C. 236 (DC)

John Doe v. Privacy Commr. (1991), 53 O.A.C. 236 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Order P-237 of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, dated August 6, 1991;

And In The Matter Of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, as amended;

And In The Matter Of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224, as amended.

John Doe, James Doe, Jack Doe and George Doe (applicants) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Solicitor General of Ontario and Theodore Matlow (respondents)

(No. 525/91)

Indexed As: John Doe et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Steele, J.

December 23, 1991 and January 13, 1992.

Summary:

A judge presiding over a criminal case found that certain police officers acted im­properly and lied. An internal police investi­gation found no evidence of wrongdoing. The judge applied under the Ontario Free­dom of Information and Protection of Pri­vacy Act for access to the police report. The Commissioner ordered most of the report released. The unnamed officers applied for judicial review. The judge did not wish to pursue the matter on his own behalf, so he consented to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (C.C.L.A.) acting on his behalf. The C.C.L.A. applied for leave to intervene as an added party or, alternatively, as a friend of the court.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Steele, J., dismissed the application and, in supple­mentary reasons, awarded costs against the C.C.L.A.

Practice - Topic 681

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Persons who may apply - A judge presiding over a criminal case found that police officers acted improperly - An internal police investigation exonerated the officers - The judge applied under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Pro­tection of Privacy Act for access to the police report - The Commissioner ordered most of the report released - The officers applied for judicial review - The judge consented to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (C.C.L.A.) acting on his behalf - The C.C.L.A. applied for leave to inter­vene as an added party or as a friend of the court - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - The judge was the proper party and should proceed or withdraw totally - The C.C.L.A. lacked sufficient interest to intervene on a public interest basis or as a friend of the court.

Practice - Topic 682

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Re interest in subject matter - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that "the matters to be considered on whether a person should be granted the right to in­tervene on a public interest basis, are: (1) the nature of the case; (2) the issues which arise; and (3) the likelihood of the appli­cant being able to make a useful contribu­tion to the resolution of the matter without causing injustice to the immediate parties." - See paragraph 6.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - [See Prac­tice - Topic 681 ].

Practice - Topic 7029.5

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment to - Successful party - Exceptions - Where not in public or private interest - [See Practice - Topic 7159 ].

Practice - Topic 7159

Costs - Party and party costs - Liability for - Intervenors - The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (C.C.L.A.) unsuc­cessfully sought leave to intervene as an added party in a judicial review application respecting access to a police report under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - The C.C.L.A. claimed it was acting in the public interest and no costs should be awarded against it - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that the C.C.L.A., as intended intervenor, was not acting entirely in the public interest - There was no reason why costs should not be awarded against the C.C.L.A. - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

Schofield v. Ministry of Commercial and Consumer Relations, 28 O.R.(2d) 764, refd to. [para. 7].

Clarke et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (1978), 81 D.L.R.(3d) 33, refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.O. 1987, c. 25.

Counsel:

W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., for the applicant, the Canadian Civil Liberties Assoc.;

Stephen T. Goudge, Q.C., and Richard Stephenson, for the respondents, John Doe, James Doe, Jack Doe and George Doe;

S.N. Manji, for the Information and Pri­vacy Commissioner.

This application was heard on November 9, 1991, before Steele, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, whose decision was released on December 23, 1991, with sup­plementary reasons on costs released on January 13, 1992.