Law Society of Ontario v Odeleye, 2019 ONLSTH 315
Decision involves the LSO Tribunal exercising its discretion under the SPPA to ask the division court to inquire into whether the Immigration and Refugee Board is in contempt of its orders for production of records. The case originally involves a series of complaints against the licensee-lawyer for unwelcome sexual advances and related conduct (source). The lawyers for the licensee requested production for documents from the IRB and the IRB produced several documents (about 90 pages) with some redactions. The LSO ordered the production of same with no redactions. The IRB did not comply as argued the LSO did not have jurisdiction. The Tribunal disagreed and ordered again. The Tribunal takes the position that it can put protections in place to address the privacy concerns.
Strathroy-Caradoc (Police Service) (Re), 2019 CanLII 99482 (ON IPC)
Decision involves access to records involving the death of a minor child. The appellants are the parents’ of the minor child. The parents made five access requests to the police service. The police denied access relying on statutory provisions that the matter is still being investigated and/or part of a law enforcement investigation. The adjudicator finds that all the records are exempt but that the police’s exercise of discretion is not upheld and re-ordered to re-exercise discretion. The decision held that the exercise of discretion was not in accordance with Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and ordered the police to re-exercise the discretion. Further, the adjudicator was not persuaded that the police independently exercised their discretion in not disclosing the records and hence, the order.
BS v Youthdale Treatment Centres (CYFSA s. 171), 2019 CFSRB 51
The child (BS) made an application to the Child and Family Services Review CFSRB (“CFSRB”) to review her emergency admission to the Acute Support Unit at a local treatment centre. The child took the position that the statutory criteria under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act was not met. The supervisor of the residence testified that the child had a history of self-harm and running away from the residence. The supervisor also said that a note was found and this note was taken as a suicide note. No medical treatment required for self-harm to her wrists; medical treatment provided to cuts on her legs but the child was released from the hospital. The CFSRB held that the evidence provided did not meet the statutory requirement for the admission. Namely, the CFSRB held,
At para 21: The description presented by the Supervisor and the admitting psychiatrist did not demonstrate that the Child had a substantial disorder of thought, emotion or cognition which grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments at the time of her admission to the Unit as required under the Act.