Page: 4 D. STANDARD OF REVIEW [16] In Walmsley v. Ontario (Attorney General)4 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a standard of correctness applied to a determination by the IPC that certain documents were within the control of the Ministry of the Attorney-General and therefore subject to FFIPA. The documents were actually in the possession of individual members of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, a body which provides advice to the Attorney-General on the suitability of candidates for appointment as provincial court judges. The IPC found the members of the committee were agents of the Ministry and that the Ministry therefore had control of the documents. In imposing a correctness standard of review, the Court of Appeal reasoned that this was a question going to jurisdiction and not one requiring specialized expertise to interpret. [17] Walmsley was decided prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick5, a case which fundamentally changed the law with respect to the standard of review of administrative tribunals by collapsing the previous three standards into two – correctness and reasonableness. In doing so, however, the Court held that it did not intend to alter the level of deference afforded to tribunals previously and stated that where the standard of review has already been settled with respect to a particular question, it is not necessary to revisit the issue in subsequent cases. Further, in Dunsmuir the Supreme Court held that the standard of correctness will continue to apply to questions of jurisdiction and general questions of law outside the specialized expertise of the tribunal.6 [18] Post-Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court considered the appropriate standard of review from a decision of the IPC in Ministry of the Attorney-General v. Toronto Star,7 a case involving the interpretation of a provision stating that FFIPA does not apply to a record in relation to an ongoing criminal prosecution. In that case, this Court ruled that a correctness standard should be applied because it involved a matter of general law of significant importance to the administration of criminal justice and did not fall within the specialized expertise of the IPC. Similarly, in Simon Fraser University v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner)8, the British Columbia Supreme Court applied the principles in Dunsmuir and imposed a standard of correctness on judicial review of a tribunal decision as to whether certain documents were within the custody or control of Simon Fraser University. [19] The respondents concede that a standard of correctness applies to the legal interpretation of the term “custody or control”. However, the respondents characterize the decision in this case as one involving mixed facts and law and the weighing of various factors in coming to a conclusion, and therefore submit that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. 4 Walmsley v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 611 at 618 (C.A.) 5 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 6 Dunsmuir, at paras. 57 and 59-60. 7 Ministry of the Attorney-General v. Toronto Star, 2010 ONSC 991 (Div.Ct.) 8 Simon Fraser University v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 BCSC 1481.