J.R. of P-1514/P-1563/P-1564/P-1618/P-1627 Orders: P-1514  P-1563  P-1564  P-1618  P-1627
ENDORSEMENT
Court File No: 103/98
330/98
331/98
681/98
698/98

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(DIVISIONAL COURT)

COSGROVE, J.
  BETWEEN:
SOLICITOR GENERAL AND MINISTER OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Appellant
v.

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
AND JOHN DOE, REQUESTER
Respondent
 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Sara Blake
Counsel for the Appellant



William Challis
Counsel for the Respondent

AND BETWEEN

THE CHAIR, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET
Appellant
v.

TOM MITCHINSON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
et al
Respondent

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Sara Blake
Counsel for the Appellant



Paul Schabas
Counsel for the Respondent

AND BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO
Appellant


TOM MITCHINSON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
et al
Respondent
 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Sara Blake
Counsel for the Appellant



Paul Schabas
Counsel for the Respondent

AND BETWEEN

SOLICITOR GENERAL AND MINISTER OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Appellant

v.

TOM MITCHINSON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND JANE DOE, REQUESTER
Respondent
 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Sara Blake
Counsel for the Appellant




William Challis
Counsel for the Respondent

AND BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO
Appellant

v.

TOM MITCHINSON, ASSISTANT INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO,
AND JOHN DOE, REQUESTER
Respondent
 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Sara Blake
Counsel for the Appellant



William Challis
Counsel for the Respondent


COSGROVE J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

My decision herein is to approve and grant the Order in Tab #6 of the Commissioner's motion record.

Counsel agreed that the dispute herein was reduced to the issue of whether representations (as described in the motion material) should be sealed or not.

There was an alternative proposal that a procedure could be adopted whereby counsel could be permitted to sign an undertaking to access the sealed portion of the Record.

There is a powerful tradition and philosophy that the operation of the courts should be open and transparent. The cases support this tradition. Notwithstanding, the courts which operate in a democratic context are subject to legitimate legislative limitations.

I have engaged counsel in discussions of sections 52(13) and 51(1) of the Act. I am, with respect, unable to agree that these sections (in the context of the whole legislation) support the proposition that it was intended that representations be excluded. I have concluded the Act does not warrant the sealing of the representations.

I appreciate my decision may have application to other cases; be that as it may, my decision is based on the material now before me which I have considered and upon which my decision rests.

RELEASED: August 5, 1999

 
^TOP
Court File No: 330/98

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(DIVISIONAL COURT)

Cosgrove J.

CHAIR, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

and

TOM MITCHINSON, Assistant Commissioner, and the
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ASSOCIATIONS

ENDORSEMENT

Order to go approving order at Tab 6 of this motion record.

On the issue of the inclusion of representations in the material record I believe the tradition of the courts to openness supports the argument that they should be included in the record. I do not agree that the Act sections 52 and 55 support sealing of the representations. This principle shall apply unless representations are otherwise ruled confidential by the Commissioner.

This decision applies to files 103/98, 33 1/98, 68 1/98 and 698/98.

June 3, 1999

"P. Cosgrove J."