Summary

40078

Attorney General for Ontario v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, et al.

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

(Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public)

Keywords

Access to information - Exemptions - Access to Information — Access to records — Exemptions — Cabinet records — Mandate letters — Whether confidential communications in respect of policy initiatives and development, prepared by the Premier of Ontario for his Cabinet ministers, are protected by the Cabinet records exemption — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 31, s. 12(1) (the Act).

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

A journalist with the CBC made an application under the Act for disclosure of the mandate letters addressed from the Premier of Ontario to each minister setting out’s the Premier’s policy priorities for the minister’s mandate. The Cabinet Office opposed the disclosure on the basis of s. 12(1) of the Act, the introductory language of which provides that a government head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees.

In Order PO 3973, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ordered disclosure of the mandate letters to the CBC. He determined that a record not listed at subparagraphs (a) to (f) will qualify under the opening words of s. 12(1) if the context or other information would permit accurate inferences to be drawn as to actual Cabinet deliberations at a specific Cabinet meeting. The words do not encompass the outcome of the deliberative process, such as policy choices. The Commissioner found that Cabinet Office must provide sufficient evidence to establish a linkage between the content of the record and the actual substance of Cabinet deliberations, and concluded that neither the content and context of the letters nor the evidence and representations of Cabinet Office met the test under section 12(1). The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review and the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, with Lauwers J.A. dissenting.