Public Disclosure (Court Orders): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
VisualWikitext
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
:(2) A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.
:(2) A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.
:(3) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered.
:(3) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered.
:(4) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see.
:(4) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see.


==[http://canlii.ca/t/ht6zt Ontario (Attorney General) (Re), 2018 CanLII 69587 (ON IPC)]==
==[http://canlii.ca/t/j5vm8 Cecchin v Lander, 2019 CanLII 131883 (ON SCSM)]==


[39] In this appeal, the issue is whether MAG has custody or control of the EIRFs, forms filed with the sheriff of the court. I agree with MAG that the court, not the ministry, has custody or control of the EIRFs. In making this finding, I agree with MAG that:


::The information on the EIRF is not created by an employee of the ministry. The information is provided by a litigant to an LTB proceeding (specifically, the owner/landlord of the property subject to eviction) and is filed with the court and placed in a court file by court staff.
139. The defence submitted that the posting by the plaintiffs on or about July 15, 2018 of a sign on their own property stating the fact that Mr. Bradbury was convicted of a regulatory offence under the labour legislation supported their claim for invasion of privacy.  He was convicted on December 11, 2017 of failure to comply with an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act, and fined $875 (Exhibit 2, Tab 17-C & Exhibit 14).


::As part of the court record, the content, use and disposal of the records are within the authority of the court and not the ministry.
142. Convictions and sentences imposed by courts of law are events which occur in public and are publicly-available information. The fact that some third party has posted such facts on the internet makes them all the more public. I am unable to accept the defence submission, unsupported by authority, that for Mr. Cecchin to find and post this information constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy. Such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the definition pronounced by Sharpe J.A. in Jones v. Tsige (2012), 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), 108 O.R. (3d) 241 (C.A.), at para. 70.  The conviction and sentence cannot be viewed as Mr. Bradbury’s “private affairs or concerns”.  Nor would a reasonable person regard the search for or publication of the outcome of legal proceedings as “highly offensive.”
 
::The information is used by the sheriff or the Enforcement Officer in carrying out the duties assigned to them by the judiciary and act under the direction of the court pursuant to section 76(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to facilitate the enforcement of the eviction order and to assess any safety risks associated with the eviction.
 
::The enforcement of LTB orders is not a core function of the ministry and does not relate to the ministry’s mandate and functions.
 
[40] Even though the ministry hires sheriffs or Enforcement Officers, as referred to above, this alone does not mean that MAG has custody or control of records in their possession. I find that based on my review of the factors listed above, the ministry does not have custody or control of the responsive records, the EIRFs, which are court records. As a result, there is no right of access to the records from MAG under section 10(1) of FIPPA.
 
ORDER:
 
I uphold the ministry’s decision that it does not have custody or control of the EIRFs and dismiss the appeal.
 
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gxmxd Brampton (City) (Re), 2017 CanLII 8188 (ON IPC)]==
 
ORDER:
 
1. I uphold the city’s decision, in part, and find that the personal information that appears in records 3, 4, 7, 17 and 30 is exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of the Act.
 
2. I order the city to disclose the withheld information relating to the property owner in records 1, 3, 14, 17-20, 25, 28, 30 and 34.  With the city’s copy of this order, I am enclosing a copy of these pages, with the information to be disclosed highlighted in yellow.
 
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gvkgm Thunder Bay (City) (Re), 2016 CanLII 76958 (ON IPC)]==
 
Summary: The city withheld portions of a licence agreement responsive to the appellant’s request under section 14(1) (personal information) and [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56 section 10(1)] (third party information) of the [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56 Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act]. The licence agreement does not contain personal information for the purposes of the Act, so section 14(1) does not apply to it. [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56 Section 10(1)] also does not apply to the licence agreement, so it must be disclosed to the appellant in full.

Latest revision as of 01:33, 19 April 2020

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43

137 (1) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any document filed in a civil proceeding in a court, unless an Act or an order of the court provides otherwise.

(2) A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.
(3) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered.
(4) On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see.

Cecchin v Lander, 2019 CanLII 131883 (ON SCSM)

139. The defence submitted that the posting by the plaintiffs on or about July 15, 2018 of a sign on their own property stating the fact that Mr. Bradbury was convicted of a regulatory offence under the labour legislation supported their claim for invasion of privacy. He was convicted on December 11, 2017 of failure to comply with an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act, and fined $875 (Exhibit 2, Tab 17-C & Exhibit 14).

142. Convictions and sentences imposed by courts of law are events which occur in public and are publicly-available information. The fact that some third party has posted such facts on the internet makes them all the more public. I am unable to accept the defence submission, unsupported by authority, that for Mr. Cecchin to find and post this information constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy. Such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the definition pronounced by Sharpe J.A. in Jones v. Tsige (2012), 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), 108 O.R. (3d) 241 (C.A.), at para. 70. The conviction and sentence cannot be viewed as Mr. Bradbury’s “private affairs or concerns”. Nor would a reasonable person regard the search for or publication of the outcome of legal proceedings as “highly offensive.”

Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Public_Disclosure_(Court_Orders)&oldid=5032"