Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of judicial review is confined to whether the IPC reasonably exercised its discretion to decline further review of a records-access complaint in light of overlapping civil proceedings.
• Adequacy and organization of the self-represented applicant’s motion and application materials are critically deficient, undermining proper adjudication of a sealing order and the judicial review.
• The request for a broad sealing order fails at this stage because the applicant did not file the required notice of motion, supporting affidavit, and factum addressing the Sherman Estate confidentiality test.
• Overlap between the IPC complaint and existing civil litigation raises an evidentiary and procedural question as to which forum is the more appropriate mechanism for resolving access-to-records disputes.
• The relief requested in the Notice of Application improperly seeks to overturn a Superior Court judge’s final order, which is outside the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction on judicial review of an IPC decision.
• Case management concerns dominate, with the court imposing strict filing deadlines and limiting the application’s issues to avoid further delay caused by non-compliance with rules and directions.

Background and factual context

The proceeding arises from a dispute about access to medical records connected to treatment that Mr. Hans Goetze received from a physician, Dr. Emara. Mr. Goetze has, or previously had, ongoing civil proceedings against this doctor. The requested records include those held by the doctor and related medical records that Mr. Goetze believes exist. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) became involved when Mr. Goetze complained that he had not received all of the records he believed should have been produced, particularly in light of an Affidavit of Documents sworn in January 2021 in the related civil action. The IPC ultimately decided not to continue its review of the complaint, on the basis that the record-production issues were already before the civil court and were better addressed there. In response, Mr. Goetze turned to the Ontario Divisional Court seeking to challenge the IPC’s decision.

Procedural history leading to the Divisional Court application

Initially, Mr. Goetze attempted to challenge the IPC’s June 28, 2024 decision by way of an appeal. That approach was procedurally incorrect. Justice O’Brien struck the Notice of Appeal but allowed him to proceed instead by Notice of Application for judicial review. Multiple deadlines were then set for him to file this Notice of Application. Those deadlines were missed, causing the cancellation of an initial hearing schedule that would have had the matter heard in July 2025. The Notice of Application was only filed in November 2025, considerably later than originally contemplated. During the case management process, Justice Faieta held conferences in the fall of 2025 and directed Mr. Goetze to file a Notice of Application (which he did), and also gave him explicit directions about bringing a motion for a sealing order. Justice Faieta told him to serve and file, by December 17, 2025, a notice of motion, an affidavit in support of the motion, and a factum. These directions were intended to ensure an orderly process and to align the motion with the standard principles for sealing orders set out by the Supreme Court in Sherman Estate.

The request for a sealing order and filing problems

Although Mr. Goetze had told the court he wished to obtain a sealing order over materials to be filed on the judicial review, he did not comply with the directions governing how that motion should be brought. The court, following the usual practice for sealing motions, asked that materials be provided by email so that any records potentially subject to sealing would remain private until the motion was decided. Instead of emailing them, Mr. Goetze delivered voluminous materials to the court on a microchip by courier. It was unclear if these materials had even been provided to counsel for the IPC. More importantly, despite their volume, these materials did not contain the fundamental building blocks of a proper sealing motion: a clear notice of motion, a supporting affidavit, and a factum setting out the legal and factual basis for sealing. This failure prompted the court to emphasize that parties, including self-represented litigants, cannot simply send large quantities of unorganized documents and expect the court to sift, interpret, and reconstruct their case. The judge spelled out that a proper motion requires: a notice of motion clearly stating the relief and legal basis (without turning into argument or evidence); a motion record including the evidence, generally anchored in at least one sworn affidavit; and a factum that lays out the legal and factual arguments explaining why the order sought should be granted. While the court acknowledged that self-represented litigants deserve procedural assistance and leeway, it underlined that there are limits: litigants must still acquaint themselves with the court’s procedures and comply with directions.

Nature and focus of the IPC decision under review

The judicial review is not about the ultimate merits of the underlying medical records dispute but rather about the IPC’s decision not to continue its review. The IPC had concluded that the complaint could more appropriately and completely be addressed within the existing civil proceedings between Mr. Goetze and the doctor. The Affidavit of Documents from January 2021, which underpins Mr. Goetze’s assertion that further records exist, already forms part of that civil case. The IPC reasoned that, because the alleged missing records are tied directly to that affidavit and the civil discovery process, the civil court is the best forum to address those issues, and therefore there were no reasonable grounds to continue its own review under the governing statute. The Divisional Court noted that this produces a very focused question for judicial review: was the IPC’s exercise of discretion to decline further review reasonable in these circumstances? However, the Notice of Application filed by Mr. Goetze did not clearly identify this as the issue and did not articulate any intelligible basis on which the Divisional Court could interfere with that discretionary decision. Instead, the pleading strayed into broad attacks on multiple judges, alleged miscarriages of justice in the civil action, and detailed grievances about the civil process. Much of the narrative was described by the court as incoherent, unfocused, and not genuinely material to the administrative-law question before it.

Improper relief sought and jurisdictional constraints

Compounding the problem, the Notice of Application sought remedies beyond what the Divisional Court could grant on a judicial review of an IPC decision. For instance, one of the primary remedies requested was to “overturn” the dismissal of Mr. Goetze’s civil claim by Justice Carroccia in April 2024. That dismissal order appears to be a final order of a Superior Court judge, which would be appealable to the Ontario Court of Appeal, not subject to review by the Divisional Court in an application aimed at an administrative decision. The court emphasized that it has no jurisdiction, in this procedural frame, to set aside such a Superior Court judgment. Accordingly, while the court did not strike the Notice of Application altogether, it confined the scope of the application strictly to the judicial review of the IPC’s June 28, 2024 decision. The panel hearing the application will be expected to ignore collateral complaints aimed at Superior Court rulings and focus entirely on the reasonableness of the IPC’s exercise of its statutory discretion.

Directions concerning parties and participation

Although the underlying dispute involves the physician, Dr. Emara, he was not named as a party to the judicial review application. The court decided not to force the applicant to formally add him as a respondent, but nonetheless recognized that fairness required that he be put on notice. The court therefore directed that counsel for the IPC serve a copy of the endorsement and the Notice of Application on counsel of record for Dr. Emara in the civil proceedings. If Dr. Emara wishes to be added as a respondent, he may request this by email within a set timeframe, and if added, he will be expected to file any responding materials by the same deadline as the IPC. In this way, the court preserved both procedural efficiency and the doctor’s right to participate if his interests are directly affected.

Treatment of confidentiality and redaction versus sealing

On the confidentiality front, the IPC signalled that it did not oppose a limited order to protect Mr. Goetze’s personal health information by redacting his OHIP number from the Record of Proceedings and any related materials. The court accepted this position, finding such an order uncontroversial and consistent with the privacy principles underpinning the Sherman Estate framework. It ordered that the OHIP number be redacted and that no unredacted version be filed, since that information is unnecessary for the panel to decide the judicial review. Beyond that, the court declined to grant a broader sealing order at this stage. In light of the applicant’s failure to file proper motion materials, the judge determined that any future request to seal parts of the record should be left to the panel hearing the application, which can address sealing issues if and when a proper record and argument are presented. The court stressed that while dealing with sealing prospectively is generally preferable, this matter had already been delayed extensively, and any prejudice arising from postponing the sealing decision is justified by the need to move the application forward and by the applicant’s own failures to follow directions.

Case management schedule and progression of the application

To restore structure and momentum, the court imposed a firm timetable. The IPC is required to serve and file the Record of Proceedings by April 24, 2026. Mr. Goetze must serve and file his Application Record and Factum for the merits of the application by June 26, 2026. The judge deliberately allowed more time than usual for a self-represented litigant but warned that further extensions should not be expected, particularly if any request is made at the last minute or after the deadline. The IPC must serve and file its responding materials by July 31, 2026. The Registrar is then to schedule the hearing of the application before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court, for approximately half a day, on a date no earlier than September 8, 2026. The judge also indicated that he remains seized of any further case management necessary to keep the application on track.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

The endorsement is a procedural case management and directions ruling rather than a final determination of the judicial review or of the underlying medical negligence claim. The substantive issue—whether the IPC’s decision to decline further review was reasonable—will be decided later by a three-judge panel. In this endorsement, the IPC successfully obtains an order consistent with its limited confidentiality position (redaction of the OHIP number only) and benefits from the court’s refusal to grant a broader sealing order on the current record, while the applicant retains his opportunity to proceed with the judicial review but is formally constrained to the administrative-law issue and placed under strict timelines. No damages, costs, or other monetary relief are awarded to any party in this decision, and therefore there is no total monetary award, costs, or damages amount ordered in favour of a successful party. The ultimate successful party and any financial consequences will only be known once the judicial review itself is heard and decided, and at this stage the amount, if any, cannot be determined.