Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al., (2006) 214 O.A.C. 61 (DC)

JudgeLane, Then and Pardu, JJ.
CourtSuperior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
Case DateMay 08, 2006
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(2006), 214 O.A.C. 61 (DC)

Ont. (A.G.) v. Big Canoe (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.040

Attorney General of Ontario (applicant) v. Holly Big Canoe, Adjudicator, and David Goodis, Senior Adjudicator, Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario and John Doe, Requester (respondents)

(257/99)

Indexed As: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, Then and Pardu, JJ.

May 8, 2006.

Summary:

Following his spousal assault conviction, the requester sought access to records respecting the prosecution, particularly correspondence between Crown counsel and defence counsel and documents created for Crown counsel for inclusion in the Crown brief. The Ministry denied access under the solicitor-client privilege provisions of s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. An adjudicator granted access to some documents on the basis that litigation privilege ended when the litigation terminated and solicitor-client privilege had been waived for documents actually disclosed to the requester's counsel in the assault trial. The Ministry sought judicial review, submitting that documents in the Crown brief were exempt from disclosure under the litigation privilege provisions of the second branch of s. 19.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The statutory exemption for litigation privilege was not subject to common law temporal limits and, unlike common law litigation privilege, did not terminate when the litigation ended. There was no voluntary waiver of privilege by disclosure to defence counsel. Waiver was limited to the purpose of the accused's defence.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel and waiver) - Following his spousal assault conviction, the requester sought access to records respecting the prosecution, particularly correspondence between Crown counsel and defence counsel and documents created for Crown counsel for inclusion in the Crown brief - The Ministry denied access under the solicitor-client privilege provisions of s. 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - An adjudicator granted access to some documents on the basis that litigation privilege ended when the litigation terminated and solicitor-client privilege had been waived for documents actually disclosed to the requester's counsel in the assault trial - The Ministry sought judicial review, submitting that documents in the Crown brief were exempt from disclosure under the litigation privilege provisions of the second branch of s. 19 - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for reconsideration - The statutory exemption for litigation privilege was not subject to common law temporal limits and, unlike common law litigation privilege, did not terminate when the litigation ended - There was no voluntary waiver of privilege by disclosure to defence counsel - Waiver was limited to the purpose of the accused's defence - The court stated that "there is a clear need to protect the information in the Crown brief from dissemination to the public as a matter of course upon 'simple request', which could lead to the undesirable disclosure of police methods and the like. The limited waiver of the Crown's litigation privilege by a Stinchcombe disclosure cannot be turned into a waiver of the section 19 exemption so as to entitle any person to insist upon access to the record." - See paragraphs 26 to 46.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review - Standard of review - Curial deference - The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - Affected parties applied for judicial review - The Act contained no right of appeal and no privative or finality clause - The Ontario Divisional Court held that although the Act contained no privative clause or statutory right of appeal, the court should bestow a "high degree of curial deference" on the decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner - The court stated that "I agree with the submissions of the parties that the standard of review as to solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege and s. 19 of FIPPA is correctness; and that as to sections 21 and 49, the standard is reasonableness" - See paragraphs 13 to 17.

Crown - Topic 7408.1

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Disclosure - Particular documents - Crown brief - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Cases Noticed:

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.), leave to appeal refused (2003), 319 N.R. 200; 189 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 1].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner, Inquiry Officer) - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al.

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 4].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick (2003), 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Dr. Q., Re (2003), 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 599 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

John Doe v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) (1993), 64 O.A.C. 248; 13 O.R.(3d) 767 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 6].

Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner) (2004), 73 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 9].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

Taylor et al. v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office et al., [1998] 4 All E.R. 801; 233 N.R. 172 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 12].

D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 187 O.A.C. 26; 184 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 13].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2002), 307 A.R. 201; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 14].

N.G. v. Upper Canada College (2004), 70 O.R.(3d) 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 17].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe, John Doe and The Law Society of Upper Canada, [1997] O.J. No. 4495 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 18].

Philip Services Corp. v. Ontario Securities Commission (2005), 202 O.A.C. 201 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 21].

CTV Television Inc. v. Toronto Police Service et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 238; 59 O.R.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 26].

CTV Television Inc. v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region) - see CTV Television Inc. v. Toronto Police Service et al.

Children's Lawyer for Ontario v. Goodis et al. (2003), 177 O.A.C. 1; 66 O.R.(3d) 692 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2005), 196 O.A.C. 350; 75 O.R.(3d) 309 (C.A.), refd. to. [para. 42, footnote 28].

Ontario (Children's Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) - see Children's Lawyer for Ontario v. Goodis et al.

D.P. v. Wagg (2002), 165 O.A.C. 209; 61 O.R.(3d) 746 (Div. Ct.), revd. in part (2004), 187 O.A.C. 26; 71 O.R.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-31, sect. 19 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (1st Ed. 1974), p. 67 [para. 18, footnote 8].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999) (Supp.), paras. 14.75.1 [para. 26, footnote 14]; 14.96 ff. [para. 35, footnote 20].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 1 [para. 18, footnote 8].

Counsel:

Luba Kowal, for the Attorney General of Ontario, applicant;

William S. Challis, for the respondents other than the requester;

No one appearing for the requester.

This application was heard on November 23, 2005, before Lane, Then and Pardu, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

On May 8, 2006, Lane, J., released the following judgment for the Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Liquor Control Board (Ont.) v. Magnotta Winery Corp. et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 15 Septiembre 2010
    ...v. Big Canoe et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 125; 62 O.R.(3d) 167 (C.A.), consd. [para. 25]. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61; 80 O.R.(3d) 761 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34]. Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 245; ......
  • Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al., (2009) 248 O.A.C. 29 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 20 Febrero 2009
    ...Commissioner, Inquiry Officer) - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 245; 89 O.R.(3d) 457 (Div. Ct.......
  • Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al., (2008) 233 O.A.C. 245 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 29 Enero 2008
    ...of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 37]. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Flack v. Pacific Press Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 275; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 334 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44]. Good......
3 cases
  • Liquor Control Board (Ont.) v. Magnotta Winery Corp. et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 15 Septiembre 2010
    ...v. Big Canoe et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 125; 62 O.R.(3d) 167 (C.A.), consd. [para. 25]. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61; 80 O.R.(3d) 761 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34]. Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 245; ......
  • Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al., (2009) 248 O.A.C. 29 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 20 Febrero 2009
    ...Commissioner, Inquiry Officer) - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 245; 89 O.R.(3d) 457 (Div. Ct.......
  • Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al., (2008) 233 O.A.C. 245 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 29 Enero 2008
    ...of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 37]. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 61 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Flack v. Pacific Press Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 275; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 334 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44]. Good......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT