Case: Pending Anthony Org v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 03

[Westray]

Thank you for your opening statement.

Both parties have 48 hours to provide a list of witnesses they wish to call, or to indicate to the Court that they would like to move forward without calling any witnesses.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Motion to Dismiss

Thank you, Your Honor. Unfortunately, I must request a dismissal of this case. As I outlined in my opening statement, and as Your Honor can see from the Plaintiff's complaint, the Plaintiff is not alleging the Defendant withheld information. The Defendant is required to disclose if classified information exists relevant to the FOI request but cannot be shared. The Defendant has repeatedly attested in this court that there is no such information. The Plaintiff does not claim such information exists, nor have they provided evidence to substantiate any such concern.

The Defendant also responded to the Plaintiff's FOI request within 7 days. That is addressing the request in a timely manner. The only claim the Plaintiff is suing on is that the Defendant did not clarify whether records were searched, whether classified records exist, and whether such classified records were redacted and not provided.

This is simply not sufficient under the Freedom of Information Act, Section 5a. All of the Plaintiff's complaints are inherently answered by the response. Yes, records were searched. That's why there's a response. No, there are not classified records or redactions to provide. That is why there was no classification level stated in the response.

The Government is not claiming a specific piece of information cannot be shared. That is one of the two causes of action established in Section 5a, and that is not the grounds of this lawsuit. The Plaintiff claims "wasted time" as a small part of their complaint, but the Plaintiff received a response within a week, and did nothing to indicate to the Defendant they wished for additional information. An individual receiving a response within a week, not following up, and then claiming the Ministry wasted time, does not meet the idea that the Government is not handling a request in a timely manner.

As such, these are the only two causes of action provided by the law. The Plaintiff does not have the right to sue simply to request judicial review. The Plaintiff is not suing over or alleging that information was withheld. And the Plaintiff's allegation of wasted time is clearly disproven and unsubstantiated, based on the screenshot submitted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Your Honor, we respectfully request dismissal, as the Plaintiff's lawsuit does not meet a proper cause of action.

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss before the Court issues a decision.

 

[Anthony_org]

Motion to Dismiss

Thank you, Your Honor. Unfortunately, I must request a dismissal of this case. As I outlined in my opening statement, and as Your Honor can see from the Plaintiff's complaint, the Plaintiff is not alleging the Defendant withheld information. The Defendant is required to disclose if classified information exists relevant to the FOI request but cannot be shared. The Defendant has repeatedly attested in this court that there is no such information. The Plaintiff does not claim such information exists, nor have they provided evidence to substantiate any such concern.

The Defendant also responded to the Plaintiff's FOI request within 7 days. That is addressing the request in a timely manner. The only claim the Plaintiff is suing on is that the Defendant did not clarify whether records were searched, whether classified records exist, and whether such classified records were redacted and not provided.

This is simply not sufficient under the Freedom of Information Act, Section 5a. All of the Plaintiff's complaints are inherently answered by the response. Yes, records were searched. That's why there's a response. No, there are not classified records or redactions to provide. That is why there was no classification level stated in the response.

The Government is not claiming a specific piece of information cannot be shared. That is one of the two causes of action established in Section 5a, and that is not the grounds of this lawsuit. The Plaintiff claims "wasted time" as a small part of their complaint, but the Plaintiff received a response within a week, and did nothing to indicate to the Defendant they wished for additional information. An individual receiving a response within a week, not following up, and then claiming the Ministry wasted time, does not meet the idea that the Government is not handling a request in a timely manner.

As such, these are the only two causes of action provided by the law. The Plaintiff does not have the right to sue simply to request judicial review. The Plaintiff is not suing over or alleging that information was withheld. And the Plaintiff's allegation of wasted time is clearly disproven and unsubstantiated, based on the screenshot submitted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Your Honor, we respectfully request dismissal, as the Plaintiff's lawsuit does not meet a proper cause of action.

FOIA Requires Timely Handling, Not Merely a Timely First Message​

The Defendant repeatedly equates “providing an answer within one week” with “handling the request in a timely manner.”

FOIA §5(a) does not use the word answer. It uses the phrase “handled in a timely manner.” Those are not synonymous.

A request is not “handled” simply because the Ministry sends a message. It is handled when the Ministry completes the request or lawfully explains why it cannot yet be completed.

Here, the request was not completed within one week. It remained unresolved, with no production, denial, or explanation that additional time was required.

---

A Response That Leaves the Request Open Can Still Be Untimely​

The Defendant asserts that because “no information was withheld,” no further FOIA obligation existed.

That argument conflates withholding with delay. FOIA §5(a) treats them as separate grounds for suit. A request can be untimely even if nothing is ultimately withheld.

If the Defendant’s interpretation were correct, any ministry could indefinitely delay resolution so long as it sent a message within seven days. That would nullify the “timely manner” provision entirely.

---

The Plaintiff Was Not Required to Follow Up to Preserve a Timeliness Claim​

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s failure to request clarification defeats the claim.

FOIA does not impose a duty on citizens to chase compliance. The statute places the obligation to timely resolve or justify delay on the Ministry.

A citizen’s silence after an incomplete response does not retroactively convert delay into timely handling.

---

Timeliness Is an Independent Cause of Action Under FOIA §5(a)​

The Defendant asserts that FOIA §5(a) provides only two causes of action and that neither applies here.

That is incorrect. The statute explicitly allows suit where a citizen believes the request “is not being handled in a timely manner.” The Plaintiff alleges exactly that.

The Plaintiff is not seeking judicial review “for its own sake,” but because the request was left unresolved beyond the statutory minimum without lawful explanation.

---

CONCLUSION​

The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is based solely on a failure to clarify search or classification details is incorrect. The Plaintiff’s complaint expressly alleges untimely handling, stating that “The Ministry has now allowed the ticket to lapse without further action.” This allegation is independent of any classification issue and directly invokes FOIA §5(a)’s timeliness provision. The Defendant’s motion omits this claim entirely and therefore mischaracterizes the basis of the lawsuit.

The Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED.

 

[Anthony_org]

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS​

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for sanctions based on the Defendant’s material mischaracterization of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The Defendant asserts that the lawsuit is based solely on classification or search clarification issues, while entirely omitting the Plaintiff’s expressly pleaded allegation that “The Ministry has now allowed the ticket to lapse without further action,” which directly raises a timeliness claim under FOIA §5(a).

By ignoring a stated basis for relief and reframing the case as something it is not, the Defendant presented an incomplete and misleading account of the Plaintiff’s claims in an effort to secure early dismissal. Such conduct undermines fair adjudication.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take appropriate corrective action to address this misrepresentation.

 

[Westray]

Motion to Dismiss

Thank you, Your Honor. Unfortunately, I must request a dismissal of this case. As I outlined in my opening statement, and as Your Honor can see from the Plaintiff's complaint, the Plaintiff is not alleging the Defendant withheld information. The Defendant is required to disclose if classified information exists relevant to the FOI request but cannot be shared. The Defendant has repeatedly attested in this court that there is no such information. The Plaintiff does not claim such information exists, nor have they provided evidence to substantiate any such concern.

The Defendant also responded to the Plaintiff's FOI request within 7 days. That is addressing the request in a timely manner. The only claim the Plaintiff is suing on is that the Defendant did not clarify whether records were searched, whether classified records exist, and whether such classified records were redacted and not provided.

This is simply not sufficient under the Freedom of Information Act, Section 5a. All of the Plaintiff's complaints are inherently answered by the response. Yes, records were searched. That's why there's a response. No, there are not classified records or redactions to provide. That is why there was no classification level stated in the response.

The Government is not claiming a specific piece of information cannot be shared. That is one of the two causes of action established in Section 5a, and that is not the grounds of this lawsuit. The Plaintiff claims "wasted time" as a small part of their complaint, but the Plaintiff received a response within a week, and did nothing to indicate to the Defendant they wished for additional information. An individual receiving a response within a week, not following up, and then claiming the Ministry wasted time, does not meet the idea that the Government is not handling a request in a timely manner.

As such, these are the only two causes of action provided by the law. The Plaintiff does not have the right to sue simply to request judicial review. The Plaintiff is not suing over or alleging that information was withheld. And the Plaintiff's allegation of wasted time is clearly disproven and unsubstantiated, based on the screenshot submitted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Your Honor, we respectfully request dismissal, as the Plaintiff's lawsuit does not meet a proper cause of action.

After much consideration, the motion to dismiss is respectfully rejected. Based on the provisions of Freedom of Information Act, the Plaintiff has established a sufficient standing and a proper cause of action in order to levy this case. The Act itself has enabled the Plaintiff to establish an independent timeliness cause of action.

In particular, §5(a) of the Act states that "In the event that the Government claims that a specific piece of information cannot be shared or is not narrow in scope, but the petitioning citizen disagrees, or if the petitioning citizen feels that their request is not being handled in a timely manner, they may file a suit in Court." I've highlighted the relevant clause here, which enables the Plaintiff to sue purely on timeliness grounds if they wish to do so. All that needs to be established is for the Plaintiff to "feel" that their request is not being handled in a timely manner.

With regards to §5(a)(i), nothing in such clause affirms that a response within one week conclusively satisfies timeliness. Instead, the Act merely outlines that one week to address the request is a minimum grace period before a judge should consider a violation.

Furthermore, the Act imposes a duty for the government to determine and examine. Under §4(b), it is states that "Upon reviewing the request, the Ministry shall examine the request and determine the classification level of the information being requested. If they are unfamiliar with the classification level of the information being requested, they are encouraged to speak with other Ministers or legal counsel." Whether the Ministry's response has satisfied this duty remains in contention here. It is a merits question, rather than a pleading defect.

That being said, these arguments presented in the motion to dismiss are still fair to bring up in your arguments. The issue is that they are simply not sufficient enough to justify dismissing the case at this stage.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS​

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for sanctions based on the Defendant’s material mischaracterization of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The Defendant asserts that the lawsuit is based solely on classification or search clarification issues, while entirely omitting the Plaintiff’s expressly pleaded allegation that “The Ministry has now allowed the ticket to lapse without further action,” which directly raises a timeliness claim under FOIA §5(a).

By ignoring a stated basis for relief and reframing the case as something it is not, the Defendant presented an incomplete and misleading account of the Plaintiff’s claims in an effort to secure early dismissal. Such conduct undermines fair adjudication.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take appropriate corrective action to address this misrepresentation.

This motion is hereby respectfully denied. Sanctions are an extraordinary remedy, reserved for circumstances involving bad faith, intentional misrepresentation, or abuse of the judicial process. Disagreement between parties regarding the interpretation of a complaint does not meet this threshold.

 

[Westray]

Now that the motions have been responded to, I will reiterate the next stage of the trial.

Both parties have 48 hours to provide a list of witnesses they wish to call, or to indicate to the Court that they would like to move forward without calling any witnesses.