{"id":8149,"date":"2019-05-08T20:03:47","date_gmt":"2019-05-08T20:03:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/?post_type=jfcy-in-the-courts&#038;p=8149"},"modified":"2023-11-16T14:44:57","modified_gmt":"2023-11-16T19:44:57","slug":"ocl-v-oipc","status":"publish","type":"jfcy-in-the-courts","link":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/cases-decisions\/ocl-v-oipc\/","title":{"rendered":"Ontario Children\u2019s Lawyer v Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner [Privacy of OCL Records]"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>JFCY intervened in this case.<\/p>\n<p>The background to this case is that a child was represented in a custody and access dispute before the family court by the Children\u2019s Lawyer for Ontario (Children\u2019s Lawyer). Following the family court process, the father made an application to the Ministry of Attorney General (MAG) under the <em>Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act<\/em> (FIPPA) for a copy of his child\u2019s records.<\/p>\n<p>Decision making history:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Children\u2019s Lawyer took the position that FIPPA does not apply to private litigation files involving their provision of services to children.<\/li>\n<li>MAG advised the father that they did not have custody or control of the records and FIPPA did not apply.<\/li>\n<li>The father appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and the IPC found that the Children\u2019s Lawyer was a branch of MAG, that MAG had custody and control of the Children\u2019s Lawyer records, and ordered MAG to issue an access decision to the father.<\/li>\n<li>The decision of the IPC was appealed by the Children\u2019s Lawyer to the Divisional Court, who upheld the IPC\u2019s decision.<\/li>\n<li>This was appealed again to the Ontario Court of Appeal (this decision).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court of Appeal overturned the earlier decisions and held that the records of the Children\u2019s Lawyer were not subject to FIPPA, noted the unique role Children\u2019s Lawyer in the judicial process, and the relationship between the child and the Children\u2019s Lawyer required a heightened degree of protection.<\/p>\n<p>JFCY is pleased that the Court held that the <em>UN Convention on the Rights of the Child<\/em> \u201crequires that children be afforded special safeguards, care and legal protection by the courts on all matters involving their best interests, including privacy\u201d and that our submissions were reflected in their decision.<\/p>\n<p>Overview of JFCY\u2019s submissions:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Children are individual rights holders entitled to form fully protected solicitor-client relationships independent of adult involvement;<\/li>\n<li>Children\u2019s inherent vulnerabilities entitle them to a heightened level of protection in the justice system;<\/li>\n<li>Solicitor-client privilege does not cover all client records in the possession of a lawyer, but all client records in the possession of a lawyer (both privileged and non-privileged) are covered by a lawyer\u2019s professional, ethical, and fiduciary duties of confidentiality and loyalty; and<\/li>\n<li>Intrusion into the fiduciary duties of lawyers amounts to a fundamental erosion of the solicitor-client relationship, which in turn undermines the integrity of the administration of justice as a whole.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The significance of this case is that the records of the Children\u2019s Lawyer are confidential and privileged; and can not be subject to FIPPA requests. Ensuring that the child\u2019s voice will be heard, respected, and protected throughout the process of litigation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/OCL-v-IPC-JFCY-Factum.pdf\"><strong>JFCY factum<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/OCL-v-IPC-ONCA-2018.pdf\">Ontario Court of Appeal decision<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>JFCY intervened in this case. The background to this case is that a child was represented in a custody and&mldr;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-8149","jfcy-in-the-courts","type-jfcy-in-the-courts","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jfcy-in-the-courts\/8149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jfcy-in-the-courts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/jfcy-in-the-courts"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jfcy-in-the-courts\/8149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jfcy.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}