Toronto v. Privacy Commr. (1995), 86 O.A.C. 368 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
In The Matter Of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J-1;
And In The Matter Of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56;
And In The Matter Of Order M-321 (Appeal M-9200325) Donald Hale, Inquiry Officer, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, dated May 26, 1994.
The Corporation of the City of Toronto (applicant) v. Donald Hale, Inquiry Officer, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (respondent)
(410/94)
Indexed As: Toronto (City) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.)
Ontario Court of Justice
General Division
Divisional Court
O’Driscoll, Dunnet and Adams, JJ.
October 18, 1995.
Summary:
A former employee of the City of Toronto applied under the Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for disclosure of certain records or portions thereof from the employee’s personnel file. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario permitted the request. The City applied for judicial review.
The Ontario Divisional Court, dismissed the application.
Crown – Topic 7220.04
Examination of public documents – Freedom of information – Bars – Reasonable expectation of probable harm – The City of Toronto terminated an employee following an altercation with a fellow worker – The employee applied under the Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for disclosure of certain records or portions thereof from his personnel file – The City referred to several incidents of unattributed vandalism and denied access to portions of the records under s. 13 of the Act – Section 13 exempted disclosure that could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten an individual’s safety or health – An inquiry officer concluded that s. 13 was inapplicable because there was no reasonable expectation of probable harm – The Ontario Divisional Court refused to intervene, where the inquiry officer acted in good faith and his decision could be rationally supported on a construction which the relevant legislation could reasonably be considered to bear.
Crown – Topic 7246
Examination of public documents – Freedom of information – Judicial review – Standard of review – [See
Crown – Topic 7220.04
].
Cases Noticed:
Doe et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) (1993), 64 O.A.C. 248; 13 O.R.(3d) 767 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].
Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area v. Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council et al. (1991), 53 O.A.C. 231; 86 D.L.R.(4th) 441 (Div. Ct.), appld. [para. 14].
Service Employees’ International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses’ Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382; 41 D.L.R.(3d) 6, consd. [para. 16].
Woolaston v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1973] S.C.R. 102; 28 D.L.R.(3d) 489, consd. [para. 17].
Statutes Noticed:
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56, sect. 13 [para. 6 et seq.]; sect. 42 [para. 15].
Counsel:
D.B. Leibson, for the applicant;
D. Goodis and W. Challis, for the respondent.
This application was heard before O’Driscoll, Dunnet and Adams, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.
The following decision of the court was delivered orally by O’Driscoll, J., and was released on October 30, 1995.
