Public Disclosure (Court Orders)

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.

Ontario (Attorney General) (Re), 2018 CanLII 69587 (ON IPC)

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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 section 10(1) (third party information) of the 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. Section 10(1) also does not apply to the licence agreement, so it must be disclosed to the appellant in full.