Anton Oleynik Applicant And: Gary Kachanoski, the president v. vice-chancellor of memorial university of newfoundland and labrador, 2021 NLSC 4

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : Oleynik v.

Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador , 2021 NLSC 4 Date : January 8, 2021 Docket : 201901G5833 Between: Anton Oleynik Applicant And: Gary Kachanoski, the president and vice-chancellor of memorial university of newfoundland and labrador Respondent And: michael harvey, in his capacity as THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR INTERVENOR Corrected Judgment: The text of the original judgment was corrected on April 14, 2021, and a description of the correction is appended as APPENDIX I. Before: Justice Glen L.C. Noel Place of Hearing: St.

John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: September 28 and 30, 2020

Summary: Anton Oleynik, a professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, brought an application for judicial review of Memorial’s response to an access to information request and the implementation of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations. Memorial applied to strike the application relying upon affidavit evidence. In response to Memorial’s application and affidavits, Oleynik served a Notice of Inspection of documents and, from the documents produced, subsequently served 50 Interrogatories on Memorial. Memorial and its counsel refused to answer the Interrogatories.

Oleynik applied under Rule 31.04 to compel answers to the Interrogatories by Memorial’s officers and agents, including its counsel. He

sought leave to issue Interrogatories to counsel for the Commissioner. He also sought the alternative remedies of a Court-appointed expert and referral to the Attorney General, or adjournment of the proceedings for completion of a police investigation into regulatory offences allegedly committed by Memorial. Held: The application was dismissed and Oleynik ordered to pay Column 5 costs to Memorial and the Commissioner for part of the hearing in respect to the Interrogatories directed personally to counsel. The Court gave directions to the parties on the Case Management of the proceedings.

Appearances: Anton Oleynik Appearing on his own behalf Koren A. Thomson and Kara A. Harrington Appearing on behalf of the Respondent Andrew A. Fitzgerald Appearing on behalf of the Intervenor Scott Campbell Appearing on behalf of Ms. Thomson and Stewart McKelvey Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Finance) , 2019 NLSC 222 ; Szeto v. Dwyer , 2010 NLCA 36 ; Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Brian Pallister et al., 2019 MBQB 118 ; IMP Group International Inc. v.

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2013 NSSC 332 ; Mangrove v. Newfoundland & Labrador , 2009 NLTD 115 ; University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 ABQB 699 ; Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. , 2010 NSSC 20 ; STATUTES CONSIDERED: Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 , S.N.L. 2015, c. A-1.2 ; Management of Information Act , S.N.L. 2005, c. M-1.01 ; Judicature Act , R.S.N.L. 1990, c. J-4 RULES CONSIDERED: Rules of the Supreme Court , 1986 , S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch.

D REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Noel, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The specific issue before the Court is whether the Applicant, Anton Oleynik should be permitted to conduct written interrogatories of the Respondent and other officers or agents of the Respondent including legal counsel for the Respondent, and further, allowed to serve interrogatories upon legal counsel for the Intervenor.

The broader issue is the case management of several proceedings arising from access to information requests Oleynik has made in the context of employment grievances with his employer, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador (“Memorial”). [ 2 ] Oleynik is a full-tenured professor in the Department of Sociology at Memorial. [ 3 ] Memorial is a body public subject to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 , S.N.L. 2015, c. A-1.2 (“ ATIPPA ”).

The Respondent, as the President and Vice-Chancellor of Memorial at the relevant time, was the head of the public body. [ 4 ] The Intervenor is the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Newfoundland and Labrador (“the Commissioner”) and by consent of the parties was granted leave to intervene in the proceeding. The Commissioner is an independent statutory officer of the House of Assembly. The Commissioner’s responsibilities include conducting investigations respecting a decision, act, or failure to act of the head of a body in relation to an access to information request.

[ 5 ] Oleynik initially commenced this proceeding as a judicial review application of Memorial’s response to an access to information request and the implementation of the Commissioner’s recommendations. Oleynik also asked in his application for the Court to assess Memorial’s compliance with the anonymity provision of the ATIPPA . [ 6 ] Memorial applied to strike the proceeding. In its application to strike, Memorial relied upon affidavit evidence and supporting documents. Oleynik then served a Notice of Inspection, and Memorial produced several electronic documents in response to the Notice.

It is from those productions that the Interrogatories ensued. background The Genesis of the Dispute [ 7 ] A non-tenured colleague lodged a respectful workplace complaint against Oleynik. The complainant alleged Oleynik invaded her private space when meeting her in the hallway and near the departmental mailboxes.

Oleynik had previously participated in a review of the complainant’s performance, making several critical comments that were incorporated in the assessment report. [ 8 ] On 28 January 2019, following an internal investigation, Memorial reprimanded and suspended Oleynik without pay for a period of one month as a consequence of the complaint. Oleynik says this essentially amounts to a $9000 - $10,000 fine. The Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty Association (“MUNFA”) grieves the letter of reprimand and suspension.

The grievance is proceeding to arbitration under the Collective Agreement between MUNFA and Memorial. [ 9 ] In preparation for the arbitration, Oleynik sought access to records pertaining to the complaint and its investigation. Oleynik made an access to personal information request (the “access request”) to Memorial pursuant to sections 11 , 20(1) (b), and 33(3) of the ATIPPA . [ 10 ] Memorial registered the access request as number 015-01-38-19. Memorial attributes consecutive numbers to access requests submitted by Oleynik.

He claims such numbering of his requests undermines their anonymity. [ 11 ] Memorial released some records responsive to the access request. Oleynik was of the opinion that Memorial failed to (

i) meet its duty to assist, (ii) improperly exempted from disclosure some responsive records, and (iii) improperly redacted some other responsive records. He submitted an Access Complaint to the Commissioner. [ 12 ] After investigating the Access Complaint, the Commissioner, on 15 August 2019, issued a report identified as Report A-2019- 018 (the “Report”) finding that Memorial did not properly apply

section 29 of the ATIPPA to the records, and

section 40 to some of the records. Memorial improperly withheld the financial records and records relating to the appointment of the investigator; and did not fulfil its duty to assist under

section 13 on conducting a reasonable search for records. [ 13 ] The Commissioner recommended Memorial release to Oleynik records identified in the Report as well as the financial documents and documents related to the appointment of the investigator, subject to appropriate redactions under

section 40. The Commissioner also recommended follow-up questions regarding the search be sent, in writing, to the Office of the Provost and to the investigator asking that all paper records be searched, including notebooks and files and that any records found be released, subject to appropriate redactions. [ 14 ] Further exchanges of correspondence occurred between Memorial and Oleynik concerning the Report, but Oleynik remained dissatisfied with Memorial’s response to the Commissioner’s recommendations. Procedural History [ 15 ] Oleynik’s Amended Originating Application applies for a judicial review of (

i) Memorial’s response to the access request for responsive paper records, including notebooks and files, in custody and control of the interim administrative head of the Department of Sociology, and (ii) Memorial’s response to the Commissioner’s Report. Specifically, Oleynik applies for an order directing Memorial to implement its own decision to comply with the Commissioner’s recommendations by conducting an additional search of responsive records in the Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), the investigator’s office and the office of the interim administrative Department head.

He is seeking the release of all responsive financial records, all documents pertaining to the appointment of the investigator and the disclosure of improperly severed information on the released records. Oleynik is also requesting that the Court assess Memorial’s compliance with the requirements of anonymity set out in

section 12 of the ATIPPA . [ 16 ] Oleynik chose to proceed by judicial review arguing there is no adequate alternative remedy in the statute. He relies on Justice Marshall’s determination in Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Finance) , 2019 NLSC 222 at paras. 68-75 that the ATIPPA does not preclude judicial review, and whether judicial review is available must be decided on a case-by-case basis. [ 17 ] Memorial filed an application to strike Oleynik’s Application pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D, Rule 14.24(1) (a),(b), and (d). The basis of the application to strike is as follows:

a) Oleynik did not particularize any material facts in asking the Court to review Memorial’s compliance with the anonymity provision of the ATIPPA .

b) The relief requested is moot and frivolous because Memorial has already complied with the Commissioner’s recommendations.

c) The redaction of an HST number from the financial documents relating to the appointment of the investigator is a mandatory exception under the ATIPPA , and nevertheless of little relevancy.

d) The Report does not recommend an additional search of the interim head of the Department of Sociology.

e) Oleynik has failed to exhaust his adequate alternative remedies of returning to the Commissioner for an order under

section 51 of the ATIPPA and registering the recommendations as an order of the Court for enforcement.

f) The failure to comply with the anonymity provision is an allegation of breach of privacy, and Oleynik’s remedy is to make a complaint and have the Commissioner deal with the complaint. [ 18 ] Memorial filed two Affidavits in support of the application to strike.

One sworn by Rosemary Thorne, Memorial’s Access and Privacy Advisor, and the other by Kaitlin Butler, Access and Privacy Analyst. [ 19 ] Oleynik served Memorial with a Notice of Inspection under Rule 32.05(1), in which he sought access to email exhibits attached to Memorial’s Affidavits, in native format. [ 20 ] Memorial served Oleynik and counsel for the Intervenor with its Notice of Response producing documents in native format via Titan File for inspection and copying. [ 21 ] Oleynik determined that the internet headers (metadata) of two produced documents, i.e., the emails sent by Ms.

Thorne on 9 and 10 September 2019, had been removed. He submits the integrity of those documents is compromised since they were produced in an altered form. [ 22 ] Oleynik sought explanations for the alteration of the records from legal counsel for Memorial, copying counsel for the Intervenor on correspondence. [ 23 ] At a status hearing on 5 December 2019 before Justice McGrath, it was proposed that Oleynik attempt to address the outstanding issues by way of access to information requests.

Oleynik made a series of follow-up access requests. [ 24 ] Counsel for Memorial offered an explanation to Oleynik regarding the alterations in metadata of three emails included in Memorial’s productions. In email correspondence dated 25 May 2020, Ms. Thomson stated: … I have reviewed this with our IT staff. Any minor changes in metadata occurred automatically when imported into and/or exported from our document management software and produced to you. No changes occur to the e-document itself in that process.

Such changes in metadata may occur during normal review and transfer in the process of e-discovery utilizing industry standard document management software. I am attaching for your information copies of the three emails you referenced which have been provided directly by our client and not processed through the software. [ 25 ] On 8 June 2020, Oleynik served Memorial with 50 Interrogatories (attached hereto as Appendix “A”). He directed Interrogatories 1-9 to Dr. Gary Kachanoski; numbers 10-15 to Mr.

Steve Green, Chief Information Officer and Director of IT Services for Memorial; numbers 16-35 to the ATIPPA Coordinator, Ms. Thorne; and 36-50 to legal counsel, Ms. Thomson. [ 26 ] Counsel for Memorial advised Oleynik by correspondence that Memorial would not be responding to the Interrogatories and set out reasons for contesting their use in the proceeding. [ 27 ] I am case managing this and other proceedings before the Court involving Oleynik and Memorial and, where applicable, the Commissioner. A full listing of the proceedings is set out in Appendix “B”.

Oleynik took issue with the manner in which Memorial refused to answer the Interrogatories and that the counsel for Memorial did not comply with the requirements of Rule 31.03(2). At a Case Management Meeting, I instructed the approach to compel answers to the Interrogatories was for Oleynik to bring on an application under Rule 31.04 for on order requiring answers. I note such an approach is consistent with the leading case: Szeto v.

Dwyer , 2010 NLCA 36 . [ 28 ] On 10 July 2020, the Commissioner released a report involving an access to information request by Oleynik related to the production of emails in response to Oleynik’s Notice of Inspection (Report A-2020-008). Oleynik raised the issue of the removal of the internet headers (metadata) for the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner concluded that the evidence provided was not sufficient to ground any allegation of wrongdoing, and did not demonstrate there is any public interest that would outweigh solicitor- client or litigation privilege.

The Commissioner recommended Memorial continue to withhold the records based on section 30(1) of the ATIPPA , respecting solicitor-client and litigation privilege. Relief Sought [ 29 ] Oleynik’s application sought relief on the following grounds. Firstly, require Memorial to answer the Interrogatories, and allow him to amend his Interrogatories and serve them on Memorial, if he so chooses. Secondly, allow him to serve Interrogatories on counsel for the Intervenor.

Alternatively, have the Court refer the matter of the alteration of the records produced for inspection to the Attorney General. [ 30 ] In oral argument, Oleynik expanded on the relief he was seeking to include having the Court appoint an expert under Rule 35; or permitting him to present an expert report that he had solicited and obtained; or in the further alternative, all proceedings placed in abeyance to allow for the completion of a police investigation. issues [ 31 ] On the primary issue of whether to compel answers to the Interrogatories and by whom, and from the positions put forward by

the parties, I have identified the following questions for determination: 1. Are interrogatories appropriate in the context of a judicial review application? 2. Is the use of interrogatories contrary to the principle of proportionality in the circumstances of this proceeding? 3. Can counsel be compelled to give answers and evidence in the proceeding? 4. Are alternative remedies available to Oleynik? 5. What are the implications for moving forward in case management of the proceedings? analysis 1.

Are interrogatories appropriate in the context of a judicial review application? [ 32 ] Interrogatories or other discovery procedures are not normally permitted on a judicial review application. Judicial review proceedings are, with limited exceptions, confined to the record: Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Brian Pallister et al. , 2019 MBQB 118 , at paras. 66-70 ; and IMP Group International Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2013 NSSC 332 , at para. 33 . The problem in this proceeding is that no record has been filed.

Memorial brought its application to strike before facilitating the filing of the Record, and relied upon Affidavit and documentary evidence to strike the proceeding. [ 33 ] Oleynik cannot be faulted for availing of mechanisms under the Rules to challenge the evidence proffered to strike his application for judicial review. He relies on the comments of Green, C.J. (as he then was) in Mangrove v.

Newfoundland & Labrador , 2009 NLTD 115 at para. 20 as support for the general proposition that interrogatories and document disclosure and inspection are available on applications, as per Rule 29.09(4). [ 34 ] While Oleynik ceased the opportunity afforded by Memorial’s approach to striking his application, I am not satisfied it is necessary to compel answers to the Interrogatories to have his judicial review application determined in accordance with the applicable standard of review.

Oleynik is not entitled to turn the judicial review application into a trial de novo on the merits of the issues before the Commissioner: University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 ABQB 699 at para. 21 . But for Memorial’s striking application, Oleynik would have been limited to the Record, unless he could demonstrate the Record was not reflective of what was actually placed before the Commissioner: University of Alberta at para. 22.

There is no Record before the Court to allow for a determination on its completeness or sufficiency. [ 35 ] I will leave whether judicial review is available as an alternative remedy to the statutory appeal process set out in the ATIPPA for determination of Olynik’s Amended Originating Application on the merits. 2.

Is the use of interrogatories contrary to the principle of proportionality in the circumstances of this proceeding? [ 36 ] Our Court of Appeal has made clear the rule governing a particular procedure, such as interrogatories, does not create “an entitlement to the use of interrogatories,” but the use “depends on broader considerations”: Szeto at para 51 .

I must apply the underlying principle of proportionality taking into account “the appropriateness of the procedure, its cost and impact on the litigation, and its timeliness, given the nature and complexity of the litigation” ( Szeto at para 53 ). [ 37 ] First and foremost, I am mindful that this is just one proceeding in a total of 17, all of which I am case managing, that Oleynik has commenced with our Court involving Memorial and in most of the proceedings includes the Commissioner. I will at times during conduct of these proceedings be governed by the principle of proportionality.

My goal is to ensure the parties get a fair and proper resolution expeditiously and cost-effectively. [ 38 ] I find the Oleynik’s Interrogatories extend well beyond the scope of what is required to decide upon the application for judicial review. I agree with counsel for Memorial that, at its core, the judicial review seeks an order in the nature of mandamus , requiring Memorial to comply with the recommendations of the Commissioner. Memorial takes the position that it has fully complied with the recommendations of the Commissioner.

It would pose an unnecessary burden and expense on Memorial to answer the Interrogatories, and more importantly, I am not satisfied the answers are material to resolving the merits of the judicial review. [ 39 ] I hasten to add if in the determination of the Oleynik’s judicial review application I come to the realization that material and relevant matters are not before the Court to allow the application to be disposed of fairly, I have ultimate control of the proceedings to make any production or procedural orders necessary for proper disposition. 3.

Can counsel be compelled to give answers and evidence in the proceeding? [ 40 ] The compelling of counsel to give answers to interrogatories and evidence in a proceeding “is highly undesirable” and should only happen in “the most exceptional circumstances” when “high materiality and necessity” has been established: Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. , 2010 NSSC 20 at paras. 10 and 11 . [ 41 ] Oleynik has not demonstrated any materiality or necessity for requiring counsel for Memorial to answer the Interrogatories. He relies on email correspondence Ms.

Thomson sent to him purporting to explain the alterations in the metadata of emails in Memorial’s production. Oleynik does not accept the explanation as accurately reflecting the alterations that did occur. Counsel cannot mislead a

party, but counsel is entitled to be wrong in the explanation offered. I make no finding as to the accuracy of counsel’s explanation. [ 42 ] There are other means available to Oleynik to explore the changes to the metadata. In fact, he has done so by a separate complaint to the Commissioner that resulted in the Commissioner conducting an investigation and filing a report. He also engaged an expert to opine on the issue of metadata alterations. At the Case Management, on November 16, 2019, I gave him leave to file the expert report reserving the right of the parties to challenge the admissibility of the report.

If I determine the alteration of the metadata is germane to application to strike, Oleynik may seek to cross-examine Memorial’s affiants on the metadata alterations. There is simply no need to require Ms. Thomson to answer any of the Interrogatories. [ 43 ] Further, it would have a negative and chilling effect on counsel in dealing with self-represented litigants such as Oleynik, if I were to compel answers to interrogatories arising from counsel’s communications and correspondence with self-represented litigants.

Counsel would be most reluctant to engage in any meaningful and substantive communications with self-represented litigants that would open them to the potential of interrogatories or discovery examinations. [ 44 ] There is no justification whatsoever for granting leave to Oleynik to pose interrogatories to counsel for the Commissioner. [ 45 ] Requiring counsel to answer interrogatories would effectively conflict them from their engagements and require both Memorial and the Commissioner the additional cost and delay of engaging new counsel in complex and multiple proceedings.

I am not prepared to put Memorial and the Commissioner in such an unnecessary and unwarranted position. 4. Are alternative remedies available to Oleynik? [ 46 ] I will not order the alternative remedies Oleynik is seeking on having the Court appoint an expert under Rule 35 or adjourning proceedings for the completion of a police investigation on the alleged mutilation of government records. Oleynik’s judicial review application will be resolved on the Record that I am ordering to be filed.

I cannot make any ruling on the adequacy of the Record until the Record is filed and hearing the submissions of the parties. [ 47 ] Oleynik’s position on Memorial’s noncompliance with the Commissioner’s recommendations is the essence of what is before the Court. I am not convinced how Oleynik’s allegation of Memorial’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Management of Information Act , S.N.L. 2005, c. M-1.01 relates to Memorial’s failure to comply with the Recommendations.

I am not precluding him from making submissions on the judicial review application of the intersection of the Management of Information Act and the ATIPPA and how it relates to the relief sought. 5. What are the implications for moving forward in case management of the proceedings? [ 48 ] I am ordering the filing of the Record. Any records pertaining to a claim of privilege under

section 30 of the ATIPPA shall be identified as such and redacted from the Record, and subject to further order of the Court. In the normal course of an appeal of a public body’s decision on an access to information request, the head of the public body is responsible for preparing the record for the appeal: section 56(7) of the ATIPPA . Since this is a judicial review, there is some uncertainty over who has responsibility for preparing and filing the Record.

Both Counsel for Memorial and the Commissioner are to coordinate the preparation and filing of the Record on or before 8 February 2021. [ 49 ] The parties are to make contact with the Court through my judicial assistant for arranging a further Case Management Meeting, and to provide their available dates in January and the first week of February. I will convene a Case Management Meeting via teleconference prior to the hearing dates scheduled for 22-26 February 2021.

The purpose of the Case Management is to resolve procedural steps in the various proceedings that remain in controversy between the parties. [ 50 ] Memorial ought to give consideration as to whether it still wishes to proceed with the application to strike.

The application to strike, based as it is on affidavit evidence, may take more time to hear, with the potential for lengthy cross-examination, than having the judicial review application heard and determined based on the Record and guiding authorities. [ 51 ] Oleynik and Memorial would benefit in repairing the serious chasm in the employee-employer relationship that has developed.

I am directing the parties to consider alternative dispute resolution by way of private mediation with a mediator experienced in workplace grievances and the ATIPPA , as a means of resolving some or all of the access requests and production disputes between them. I realize it may not be appropriate for the Commissioner, as the independent investigative authority to be party to a mediation.

I also recognize the employment grievances are subject to the grievance and arbitration process set out in the Collective Agreement between Memorial and MUNFA. [ 52 ] It behooves both Memorial and Oleynik to minimize the demand on court resources and make every reasonable effort to resolve the proceedings before the Court on a cost-effective and efficient manner. The parties have already spent several days in Court and there are at least nine more days scheduled.

If the Court has to adjudicate on a multiplicity of proceedings and interlocutory applications within the proceedings, I am serving notice there will be cost consequences for pursuing matters that are unproductive to timely resolution or for ulterior motives. [ 53 ] As can be seen from a listing of case law involving Oleynik (at times, Oleinik) in the attached as Appendix “C”, he is an experienced and prodigious litigator.

He will be treated as such in my maintaining control of the proceedings and procedures. costs [ 54 ] We are where we are because Memorial chose to file and rely on affidavit evidence to strike Oleynik’s application for judicial review. Memorial’s approach caused Oleynik to respond in the manner in which he did by filing the Notice of Inspection and Interrogatories. [ 55 ] Despite my having concluded the Answers to the Interrogatories are not necessary to allow for a proper determination of the

judicial review, Oleynik’s actions in attempting to compel Answers for Memorial’s application to strike were not unreasonable. There will be no order as to costs for the Interrogatories directed to the officers and agents of Memorial. [ 56 ] However, his attempt to compel counsel to answer interrogatories was unreasonable. It requires some measure of rebuke, but not to the level of solicitor-client costs that counsel for Memorial seeks. The hearing took place over a full day and another half day.

Oleynik is ordered to pay costs on Rule 55, Column 5 of the Scale of Costs basis to Memorial for two counsel for a half day and to the Commissioner for a half day. [ 57 ] If Memorial elects to discontinue the application to strike, it may do so with no order as to costs pursuant to Rule 19.02. conclusion [ 58 ] I have concluded the Interrogatories are unnecessary and contrary to the principle of proportionality to allow for a proper and just determination of Oleynik’s judicial review application.

His request is denied for the alternative remedies of a Court-appointed expert and referral to the Attorney General, or adjournment of the proceedings for completion of a police investigation into alleged regulatory offences. oRDER: [ 59 ] I order that: 1. Oleynik’s application to compel Answers to the Interrogatories and alternative relief is dismissed with costs to Memorial for two counsel for a half day and costs to the Commissioner for a half-day on Column 5 to be taxed, unless the parties otherwise agree on the amount of costs. 2.

The Record is to be filed in accordance with paragraph 48 of this Judgment, and the parties arrange for a further Case Management Meeting as per paragraph 49 above. 3. Memorial has leave to file a discontinuance of its application to strike with no order as to costs. _____________________________ Glen L.C. Noel Justice APPENDIX “A”

APPENDIX “B” 1. 201701G6218 - Oleynik v. MUN (Judicial Review) (Hurley J Reserved) [1] 2. 201701G8543 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal of Decision) 3. 201801G7617 - Oleynik v. Kachanoski (Appeal) 4. 201901G5833 - Oleynik v. Kachanoski (Judicial Review) 5. 201901G7928 - Oleynik v. Kachanoski (Appeal) 6. 202001G0136 - Oleynik v. MUN (Judicial Review) 7. 202001G1408 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal of Decision) 8. 202001G2986 - Oleynik v. MUN / Harvey (Appeal of Decision) 9. 202001G3681 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal of Decision)

10. 202001G3967 - Oleynik v. MUN / Harvey (Appeal) 11. 202001G4524 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal of Decision) 12. 202001G4525 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal of Decision) 13. 202001G4526 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal) 14. 202001G4399 - Vianne Timmons ( ATIPPA , s. 50(2) (

b) Appl.) 15. 202001G4549 - Vianne Timmons ( ATIPPA , s. 50(2) (

b) ex parte) 16. 202001G4809 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal MUN Decision) 17. 202001G4952 - Oleynik v. MUN (Appeal) APPENDIX “C” Oleynik / Oleinik PREVIOUS CASE LAW 1. Newfoundland and Labrador

a) Oleynik v. NL (Information and Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 NLTD(G) 34 - Oleynik v. NL (Information and Privacy Commissioner) , 2012 NLCA 13 - Oleynik v. NL (Information and Privacy Commissioner) , 2012 CarswellNfld 190 - Oleynik v. NL (Information and Privacy Commissioner) , 2012 CarswellNfld 319

b) Oleynik v. NL (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 NLCA 73

c) Memorial University of Newfoundland and MUNFA (Oleynik), Re , 2020 CarswellNfld 38 2. Alberta

a) University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 ABQB 100

b) University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 ABQB 389 - 2011 ABQB 486

c) University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2012 ABQB 247

d) University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 ABQB 699

e) Oleynik v. University of Calgary , 2011 ABCA 281 - 2011 CarswellAlta 2153 - 2012 CarswellAlta 722

f) University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2012 ABQB 291

g) Oleynik v. University of Calgary, 2012 ABQB 286

h) Oleynik v. University of Calgary , 2012 ABQB 189 - 2013 ABCA 105 - 2013 CarswellAlta 602

- 2013 ABCA 278 - 2013 CarswellAlta 2476

i) Oleynik v. University of Calgary, 2013 ABCA 429

j) Oleynik v. University of Calgary 2013 ABCA 395 - 2014 ABCA 19

k) University of Calgary v. Alberta (Information and Privacy) , 2019 ABQB 950 3. Quebec

a) Oleynik c. Québec (Commission d’accès à I’information) , 2010 QCCQ 9180

b) Oleynik c. Université de Montréal , 2011 QCCQ 2181

c) Oleynik c. Université McGill , 2014 QCCQ 5759

d) Oleynik c. Université McGill , 2016 QCCQ 4822

e) Oleynik c. Université du Québec a Montréal , 2018 QCCAI 144

f) Oleynik c. Université du Québec en Outaouais , 2019 QCCAI 223

g) Oleynik c. Université du Québec en Outaouais, 2020 QCCQ 725

h) Oleynik (Parie demanderess) et Université du Québec , 2020 QCCQ 727 4. Federal

a) Oleinik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner), 2010 FC 753

b) Oleinik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner), 2010 FC 1248

c) Oleinik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner), 2011 FC 335 - 2011 FC 499

d) Oleinik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 FC 1266 - 2012 CAF 229

e) Oleinik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) , 2013 FC 44

f) Oleynik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) , 2014 FC 896

g) Oleynik v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) , 2016 FC 1167

h) Oleynik v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 737 - 2020 FCA 5 - 2020 CarswellNat 1551 - 2020 CarswellNat 4346 APPENDIX I Corrections made on April 14, 2021:

1. The Case Name is changed to Oleynik v. Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador , 2021 NLSC 4; and