at para. 66). Lawyer time is expensive, whether it is spent in
court or in lengthy and nuanced drafting sessions. I note that,
sometimes, as in this case, it will simply not be possible to
salvage something dispositive from an expensive and time-consuming, but eventually abortive, summary judgment process.
That is the risk, and is consequently the difficult nettle that
motion judges must be prepared to grasp, if the summary judgment process is to operate fairly.
 For these reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the
summary judgment, and refer both the claim and the counterclaim
to trial. In view of the appellants’ success, I would fix costs of
the appeal in the amount of $27,000, all-inclusive, payable to the
appellants. The motion judge awarded no costs, in view of divided
success. I would refer the costs of the motion to the trial judge.
Ministry of Community and Social Services v. Doe et al.
[Indexed as: Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) v. Doe]
2014 ONSC 239
Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Sachs,
Wilton-Siegel and Nolan JJ. February 24, 2014
Administrative law — Freedom of information — Exemptions from
disclosure — Grievance Settlement Board ordering Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) to adopt policy that employees were only required to
provide their first name and original identification number to public —
Information and Privacy Commission (“IPC”) subsequently ordering
ministry to disclose full names of FRO employees contained in
requester’s file — IPC reasonably concluding that FRO employees’ full
names were not excluded from disclosure pursuant to ss. 65(6)3, 14(1)(e)
or 20 of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Compliance with IPC order not requiring contravention of Grievance Settlement Board order — Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, ss. 14(1)(e), 20, 65(6)3.
In 2000, a Grievance Settlement Board (“GSB”) order was made on consent
which provided that the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) would adopt a
policy that FRO employees were only required to provide their first name and a
unique identification number to the public. That order was made after a mediation of individual grievances by employees who were concerned about their safety
because of their employment at the FRO. The Information and Privacy Commission (“IPC”) subsequently ordered the ministry to disclose the full names of FRO
employees contained in the requester’s file. The ministry brought an application
for judicial review of that decision.