ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)

DIVISIONAL COURT

Endorsement:

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario seeks an order sealing portions of the record of proceedings of the Commissioner to be filed in the application for judicial review of Order P-1356, as well as an order restricting access to the sealed material.

Having considered the material filed and the submissions of counsel, I am satisfied it is in the interest of justice to grant the order requested. Disclosure of the records in question would predetermine the Judicial Review Application, which among other things, involves the very issue of confidentiality.

Accordingly, an order shall issue pursuant to Section 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, that the portions of the Commissioner's record of proceeding in issue be treated as confidential, sealed and access to the private record shall be given to counsel for Tectonic upon the filing of the usual undertaking of confidentiality.
There shall be no costs.

BOLAND J.

Released: March 20, 1998

ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT

Endorsement:

Order to go in accordance with paragraph 1 of the motion. The balance of the motion is dismissed without costs.

BOLAND J.

Released: March 20, 1998

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT

Hartt J.

TECTONIC INFRASTRUCTURE INC.

and

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183,
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO
and ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

ENDORSEMENT

(1) This matter has somewhat of an unusual history which, along with veiled suggestions of hidden agendas, tends to complicate what would otherwise be a routine request for access.

(2) On March 5/97 the Commissioner orders certain Tectonic tender documents be produced to the Union.

On March 27/97 - Tectonic commenced J.R. application to review the Commissioner's decision.

On March 19/98 Commissioner moves before Boland J. for the following relief - an order that the Private Record relating to the Union FOI request be sealed - - an order that upon filing a confidentiality undertaking counsel to Tectonic be provided with the Private Record.

At the same time the Union moved seeking an order that the Commissioner provide counsel for the union with the private record upon filing of the appropriate undertaking.

(3) Boland J. by brief endorsement specifically denied the union request for access. No reasons were given and the formal order does not refer to the disposition at all. Under these rather atypical circumstances, all counsel seem to accept that the matter was dealt with probably on the ground that the counsel was not sufficiently independent to meet the requirements for the confidentiality provision. Despite the uncertainty involved and accepting the unique character of the request, it seems clear that the request was brought, argued and denied. No appeal of Madam Justice Boland's disposition was taken. Although details were not given, nor requested, the same general matter is before the O.L.R.B. including, I am informed, related motions concerning the material in question.

In these particular circumstances, it would not be appropriate, in my opinion, for this Court to rehear the same motion.

Motion is denied. The relief requested is denied. Costs to the motion respondent in the sum of $1,500 payable forthwith.