In 2005, we had a lively debate when a new proposed law about adoption records in Ontario was announced. Today, two days after it came into force it was struck down as unconstitutional and the Information and Privacy Commissioner is all over the ruling, even issuing press releases. This is somewhat extraordinary as the Information and Privacy Commissioner was, I think neither the author of the law or the party challenging it. It also sounds a bit like "privacy fundamentalism" to me.

But in any event, until that ruling is easily accessible on the net, the wire stories being issued with the IPC's encouragement this afternoon are the best source of information. I have placed in bold the bits of the press release that are about the ruling and not the IPC's opinion of the ruling.:

TORONTO, Sept. 19 /CNW/ - Today's court decision quashing the opening of past adoption records through Ontario's Adoption Information Disclosure Act confirms the importance of an individual's right to privacy, said Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian.

The ruling declares that the law is unconstitutional - it breaches section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus, the sections of the Act relating to access to birth registration information "are declared invalid and of no force and effect." As the Court noted, the Charter, "... is intended primarily to protect individuals and minorities against the excesses of the majority." The Commissioner constantly urged the government to amend the legislation to protect the privacy of past adoptions, giving birth parents and adoptees the right to file a "disclosure veto," which would allow them the option of blocking access to their birth registration information. While this would provide much-needed protection for the minority, it would, as the Court noted, "... in fact allow the vast majority to get the information they were seeking.""While I supported the overall thrust of this Act, I fought long and hard to convince the Ontario government to introduce a crucial amendment that would provide much-needed protection for a number of deeply worried birth mothers and adoptees. Some literally feared that the Act - without the amendment I proposed - would shatter their lives. Now their prayers have been answered."

Commissioner Cavoukian did not object to the opening of future records, but repeatedly cautioned that changing the rules retroactively, and exposing the identities of birth parents who entered into the adoption process in an era when secrecy was the norm, could have major repercussions. Despite the passing of the Act last year, the Commissioner continues to receive heart-wrenching letters, e-mails and calls from birth parents and adoptees expressing their concern - and in some cases great fear and despondency.

This court ruling will mean that Ontario residents no longer have less privacy protection than persons in the three other Canadian provinces that have adoption disclosure laws where the legislation is applied retroactively. Each of those provinces - unlike Ontario - passed laws with a provision for a disclosure veto for those who were involved in adoptions prior to the new legislation. "This is what should have happened here" says Commissioner Cavoukian. In the words of the Court, "People expect, and are entitled to expect, that the government will not share (confidential personal) information without their consent. The protection of privacy is undeniably a fundamental value in Canadian society, especially when aspects of one's individual identity are at stake."

It will be interesting to see a copy of the ruling, something that should be available in the next day or so but that idea that "the protection of privacy is undeniably a fundamental value in Canadian society, especially when aspects of one's individual identity are at stake" is maybe a new one to Canadian law. Quebec's Chater of Rights has an express provision as to privacy being protected by the 1981 patriated version the rest of the land uses does not. It is talked around in rulings leading to plenty of discussion but not firmly or plainly provided for as a protected constitutional right.

So, it will be interesting to see how the Court's ruling is framed. Section 7 apparently. Neato.