The organization failed to present a genuine issue of statutory interpretation: court
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Democracy Watch lacked public interest standing to seek judicial review of the Ontario Integrity Commissioner's (OIC) discretionary decisions under the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA).
The court upheld earlier rulings that found Democracy Watch's applications did not raise a sufficiently serious, justiciable issue and were not an appropriate way to bring the matter before the courts.
Democracy Watch, a non-partisan organization focused on government accountability and democratic reform, had challenged nine OIC decisions regarding investigations into lobbying activities. It argued that the commissioner applied the LRA inconsistently, was too lenient in enforcement, and had an institutional bias due to being appointed by the legislature. The OIC summarized the cases in its 2019-20 Annual Report, the only publicly available information on the investigations.
A motion judge had quashed Democracy Watch's applications, finding that the organization lacked standing because the cases involved individual lobbyists rather than broader legal issues. The judge ruled that granting public interest standing would undermine the statutory scheme, particularly its confidentiality provisions, and would create conflicts with the rights of lobbyists who reasonably believed their cases were closed. The Divisional Court upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal applied the test for public interest standing from Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, which requires that an applicant demonstrate a serious justiciable issue, a genuine interest in the matter and that the proceedings are a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court. While the OIC did not dispute that Democracy Watch had a strong interest in the issue, the court found that the organization failed to meet the other two requirements.
The court agreed with the motion judge's finding that the applications did not present a genuine issue of statutory interpretation. Instead, it focused on individual exercises of discretion by the OIC. The court concluded that Democracy Watch's concerns about the commissioner's enforcement approach were more political or policy-based rather than legal issues requiring judicial review. The court also rejected claims of institutional bias, finding that the LRA's legislative framework already addressed these concerns.
The court also dismissed the appeal because judicial review applications were not a reasonable or effective means to challenge the OIC's decisions. The court found that the LRA allows only lobbyists to seek judicial review and that granting Democracy Watch standing would contradict the legislative intent. It emphasized that the confidentiality provisions of the LRA prevent disclosure of investigative records, meaning judicial review would have to proceed without full factual context. The court determined this would not be an appropriate or efficient use of judicial resources. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' rulings and dismissed the appeal.
