was properly withheld. The applicants also rely on existing legislative protections in place such as the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sch. A (“PHIPA”)
which protects personal health information.
 Following the adoption of Bill 122, the applicant Maloney
made a request for information in March 2012 related to the
provision of abortion services of a statistical nature and it was
refused by the commissioner, citing the s. 65(5.7) exclusion as
the basis of the refusal. Ultimately, the information was disclosed by Ontario “outside of FIPPA”. The applicant relies on
this refusal to provide a record and subsequent release as being
illustrative of how the current legislative framework does not
work and will lead to ongoing confusion and unfairness.
 The applicant relies on Criminal Lawyers’ Assn. in support of its position that the s. 65(5.7) exclusion effectively precludes meaningful public discussion on a matter of public
interest and that thus a prima facie right of access under s. 2(b)
of the Charter is established.
 The applicant further states that the prima facie freedom
of expression claim is not negated by countervailing factors. There
are no issues of privilege and there is no indication of any interference with the proper functioning of government institutions.
 When moving on to s. 1 of the Charter, the applicant contends that the violation cannot be saved. The complete prohibition against information concerning abortion services is not
a limit “prescribed by law” and does not serve a pressing and
substantial objective. Finally, a complete prohibition on access to
records concerning abortion services is not minimally impairing
and it is disproportionate to the objective.
Position of the respondent
 Ontario advances that the purpose of the amendment to
exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services was
to address the concern that to require the disclosure of such records by hospitals could pose risks to the safety and security of
their patients, health care providers and staff. At the same time,
Ontario states that, by excluding such records from FIPPA, this
would allow hospitals to voluntarily disclose information.
 Ontario relies on the fact that access to information is a
derivative right under the s. 2(b) freedom of expression. Ontario
states that the correct legal analysis requires a determination
that (a) without the desired access, meaningful public discussion
and criticism on matters of public interest is not substantially
impeded; and (b) there are countervailing considerations inconsistent with production.