Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Appeal dismissed in a FIPPA records-recovery case. The Court upheld findings that the appellant possessed and disseminated records, and upheld evidentiary rulings and an adverse inference.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review application challenging anonymity, leave to appeal, a stay, fresh evidence, and costs arising from judicial review proceedings.
The court held that while a public body may withhold material under s.14 and s.20, each redaction must be justified; the s.14 redaction at pages 4–5 was not advice and must be produced; numerous s.20 redactions were proper but specific redactions identified in the reasons were improper and must be disclosed; records withheld as 'unrelated' that form part of produced email chains are responsive and must be produced or re-reviewed under s.14 and s.20; the appellant's affidavit was entirely struck for settlement privilege and irrelevance; NSHA must provide the additional production within one ca…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the IPC adjudicator's order because the adjudicator applied the correct "could reasonably be expected to" standard, reasonably concluded that the LCBO had not met its evidentiary burden to establish the claimed FIPPA exemptions for the requested records, and gave adequate reasons in light of statutory confidentiality constraints; intervening statutory changes not raised before the adjudicator did not warrant remitting the matter for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
Because the contested records were either covered by other requests or did not exist for the identified date range, and because the Minister lawfully refused duplicative searches and disclosures, there was no alteration or unlawful refusal and the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Minister did not alter the applicant's request—records were produced or remain under process and duplication of previously produced records is unnecessary—overlapping requests amounted to misuse causing delay, and every contested redaction was correctly applied under s.20 to protect third‑party personal information with the onus on the applicant to rebut those grounds.
Source excerpt
The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Gondor copied and disseminated the District’s personal information without authority and granted FIPPA relief.
Judicial review dismissed. The Court upheld the OIPC’s in camera process, found the hearing fair, rejected bias allegations, and held the abuse-of-process finding reasonable.
The motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant provided no admissible evidence to substantiate allegations of surveillance or privacy breaches, the FIPPA disclosures did not support her claims, and her testimony was insufficient and evasive; therefore no genuine issue for trial existed, the adjournment to call the Ombudsman was properly refused, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness; appointment of amicus and procedural accommodations were appropriate.
Source excerpt
The court enforced a prior Antunes production order, rejected FOIPPA and public-interest objections to censored video images, and ordered production and costs.
Explore more
