Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al., (1997) 101 O.A.C. 140 (CA)

• Judge: Osborne, Doherty and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 19, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 101 O.A.C. 140 (CA);1997 CanLII 3017 (ON CA);34 OR (3d) 611;3 Admin LR (3d) 42;[1997] OJ No 2485 (QL);101 OAC 140;72 ACWS (3d) 4

Ont. (A.G.) v. Privacy Commr. (1997), 101 O.A.C. 140 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.039

In The Matter Of a decision of the Commissioner under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Honourable Associate Chief Judge Robert Walmsley (respondent/appellant) v. The Attorney General of Ontario (applicant/respondent in appeal) and Irwin Glasberg, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner and Jane Doe (respondents/respondents in appeal)

(Docket No. C25156)

The Attorney General of Ontario (applicant/appellant) v. Irwin Glasberg, Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner, Jane Doe, and The Honourable Associate Chief Judge Robert Walmsley (respondents/respondents in appeal)

(Docket No. C25158)

Indexed As: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Osborne, Doherty and Goudge, JJ.A.

June 19, 1997.

Summary:

The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario, directed the Attorney General to obtain documents held by the Judicial Ap­pointments Advisory Committee and to provide a requester of information with a new decision letter regarding access to cer­tain letters. The Attorney General applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 90 O.A.C. 181, dismissed the ap­plication. The Attorney General appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of the Assistant Commissioner.

Crown - Topic 7294

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Practice - Judicial review - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the standard of review to be applied to decisions of Information and Privacy Commissioners was the standard of correctness - See paragraphs 18 to 19.

Crown - Topic 7405

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Disclosure - Par­ticular documents - Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee - The Judicial Ap­pointments Advisory Committee was set up to advise the Attorney General - A requester applied under the Freedom of Information Act for access to Committee documents relating to the selection process of a person to the position of judge - The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario, determined that the Committee was part of the Ministry and the docu­ments under the control of the Ministry - The Assistant Commissioner ordered the Attorney General to obtain copies of the Committee's documents and provide them to the requester - The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the Assistant Commis­sioner's decision - The Committee's docu­ments were not under the control of the Ministry - See paragraphs 20 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

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. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-31, sect. 1 [para. 2]; sect. 2(1) [para. 3]; sect. 10(1) [para. 4].

Counsel:

David Stratas and Penny Bonner, for Associate Chief Judge Robert Walmsley;

Leslie M. McIntosh, for the Attorney Gen­eral of Ontario;

Mary O'Donoghue and William S. Challis, for Irwin Glasberg, Assistant Information and Privacy Com­missioner.

This appeal was heard on June 2 and 3, 1997, before Osborne, Doherty and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On June 19, 1997, Goudge, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.