Is Discretion the Last Refuge of Scoundrels? A Comment on Criminal Lawyers’ Assn v. Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security)

Criminal Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, p. 323, 2009

22 Pages Posted: 20 Aug 2011

See all articles by Lorne Sossin

Lorne Sossin

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School

Lisa M. Austin

University of Toronto - Faculty of Law

Date Written: 2009

Abstract

Is access to information best left to a set of clearly expressed statutory rules, the well-reasoned discretion of information and privacy decision-makers or the court's interpretation of overarching constitutional principles? This article explores the desirability of each of these possibilities in the context of Criminal Lawyers' Assn. v. Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security) and argues that many of the constitutional arguments presented both at trial and at the Court of Appeal misunderstand the proper significance of the fact that both s. 14 and s. 19 are discretionary exemptions.

There are several implications to this argument. First, it suggests that, contrary to the Ontario Court of Appeal holding, constitutional argument is not required to compel the consideration of the public interest. Second, even if one can successfully make the argument that the failure to extend the public interest override to these exemptions is a constitutional failure, the s.1 argument is much more difficult than the Ontario Court of Appeal suggests. Third, although this argument seems to undercut the radical potential of finding a constitutionally entrenched right of access to information, we suggest that judicial review of discretion has the potential to guide and, where appropriate, constrain government action under FIPPA, and related access statutes, with greater consistency and effectiveness than constitutional review would permit. Finally, this discussion of discretion points to a different law reform agenda regarding the design of administrative procedures vis-à-vis access to information that will properly discipline its exercise outside of the review process.

Keywords: Access to Information, Criminal Laywers Assn. v. Ontario, Ministry of Public Safety and Security, Constitutional Argument and Public Interest, FIPPA, Administrative Law and Access to Information

Suggested Citation

Sossin, Lorne and Austin, Lisa M., Is Discretion the Last Refuge of Scoundrels? A Comment on Criminal Lawyers’ Assn v. Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security) (2009). Criminal Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, p. 323, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1911269

Lorne Sossin (Contact Author)

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School ( email )

4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3
Canada

Lisa M. Austin

University of Toronto - Faculty of Law ( email )

78 and 84 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Canada

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
36
Abstract Views
624
PlumX Metrics