Date: 20031202
Docket: T-701-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1414
Ottawa, Ontario, this 2nd day of December, 2003
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
CHARLES THURLOW
Applicant
- and -
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
on behalf of the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is the judicial review of the decision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") to exempt certain information for disclosure to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 (the "Act").
[2] The applicant requests an order for:
1. A review of the decision of the RCMP and a reversal of its finding regarding the non-disclosure of information;
2. A declaration or order that the information sought by the applicant does not fall within the provisions of paragraphs 22(1)(a), 22(1)(b) and/or section 26 of the Act and should therefore be disclosed;
3. Such other and further relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
Background
[3] On or about April 30, 1999, the applicant made a request to the RCMP for personal information pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act, supra. The applicant requested information pertaining to documents held or investigations by the RCMP into:
1. Alternation of the hours of the divorce trial of the applicant and Gloria Thurlow and alternations to the transcripts in the divorce trial and pre-trial conference;
2. A "stalking" charge against the applicant;
3. Funds provided to the Sheriff's office in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia for payment of judgments held by C.D. Ritcey and Gloria Thurlow;
4. Theft of a generator from the property of the applicant between the years 1984 to 1986;
5. Complaints by the applicant that the RCMP threatened him;
6. Complaints by the applicant that the RCMP failed to address his concerns when he contacted them; and
7. Threats made by the applicant or any other actions of the applicant for any purpose.
[4] The RCMP reviewed the relevant files. By letter dated June 19, 1999, the applicant was advised that some of the requested material was exempt from disclosure pursuant to subparagraph 22(1)(a)(i), paragraph 22(1)(b) and section 26 of the Act.
[5] On October 30, 2000, the RCMP received a letter from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner regarding a complaint made by the applicant against the RCMP in relation to his request.
[6] The Office of the Privacy Commissioner subsequently conducted an investigation, which resulted in the release of some further material to the applicant. The RCMP's decision in respect of the remaining material was determined to have been made properly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In a letter dated March 14, 2002, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner concluded the complaint was well-founded, but resolved.
[7] By way of notice of application dated May 1, 2002, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the decision of the RCMP. An amended notice of application was later filed.
[8] The applicant filed an affidavit sworn on May 29, 2002, containing the material disclosed to him by the respondent. Approximately 553 pages were provided to the applicant. Material was exempted from approximately 190 of these pages. In the applicant's memorandum of fact and law, he withdrew his challenge to approximately 29 of those pages.
[9] The respondent filed the confidential affidavit of Anthony Cichelly, sworn July 12, 2002, and a supplemental affidavit sworn February 6, 2003 to correct a number of errors in and omissions from the earlier affidavit. Anthony Cichelly is a corporal of the RCMP and works in the office of the Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator. He was involved in processing the applicant's request. His affidavit discloses the information that was withheld from the applicant.
[10] The Cichelly affidavit was provided to the applicant's solicitor pursuant to her having given an undertaking pursuant to Rule 152(2) of the Federal Court Rules, S.O.R./98-106, to keep the material confidential.
Applicant's Submissions
[11] The applicant submits that the information excluded from the documents has been improperly excluded and should be released to the applicant.
[12] The applicant submits that the RCMP did not properly exercise its discretion in excluding portions of the record pursuant to section 22. It is submitted that the information comes within the definition of personal information and although may fall partly within the exemption set out in section 22, it would not cause harm to future investigations if released.
[13] The applicant submits that he should be entitled to receive the details of information collected during RCMP investigation into suspected threats made by the applicant. It is submitted that he should be entitled to know what he is suspected of doing even if that information was gathered in the course of the investigation and from individuals other than himself. It is submitted that others' opinions of the applicant is personal information to which he should be entitled.
[14] The applicant submits that the excluded information which pertains to the investigation surrounding altering information about his divorce trial should be released and that excluding it is an improper use of discretion. It is submitted that this is his own personal information and as the court records are open to the public, there is no need to exclude this information.
[15] The applicant submits that a number of pages include information that he provided and should not be excluded. These include statements or complaints made by him, as well as telephone messages left by him.
[16] The applicant submits there is no concern of injury or affect on ability to investigate if factual information is released to the applicant and, as such, there is no need to exclude this information.
Respondent's Submissions
[17] The respondent submits that it properly applied the provisions of section 26 and paragraph 22(1)(a) of the Act in exempting the information in question from disclosure to the applicant.
[18] In regard to section 26 of the Act, the respondent submits that the exempted information is personal information about individuals other than the applicant. In most cases, it is submitted that the information consists of an individual's name and/or information that would reveal the individual's identity. It is submitted that a Privacy Act, supra request is not among the grounds upon which another individual's personal information may be released under the limited exceptions found in section 8 and, as such, section 26 operates as a mandatory exemption. It is submitted that section 26 applies even where the applicant is the source of the exempted information about other individuals as the Act only allows access to "the personal opinions or view of the [applicant] except where they are about another individual". It is submitted that the applicant has no right to the personal information of other individuals under section 12 of the Act because it is not personal information about himself. Furthermore, while the personal opinions or view of another individual about the applicant might be disclosable under section 26, this does not necessarily entitle the applicant to know the identity of the individual who holds those views. Also, other provisions of the Act might still apply to exempt release of such information.
[19] In regard to paragraph 22(1)(a) of the Act, the respondent submits that the exempted material includes information pertaining to two lawful Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 investigations conducted by the RCMP. It is therefore submitted that the respondent had a discretion not to disclose the information. It is also submitted that the applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the respondent's discretion was exercised improperly.
Issue
[20] Did the respondent properly apply the provisions of the Privacy Act, supra to exempt certain information from disclosure to the applicant?
Relevant Statutory Provisions
[21] The relevant sections of the Privacy Act, supra state:
|
2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a government institution and that provide individuals with a right of access to that information.
3. "personal information" means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or marital status of the individual,
(b) information relating to the education or the medical, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,
(c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,
(d) the address, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,
(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except where they are about another individual or about a proposal for a grant, an award or a prize to be made to another individual by a government institution or a part of a government institution specified in the regulations,
(f) correspondence sent to a government institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to such correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
|
2. La présente loi a pour objet de compléter la législation canadienne en matière de protection des renseignements personnels relevant des institutions fédérales et de droit d'accès des individus aux renseignements personnels qui les concernent.
« renseignements personnels » Les renseignements, quels que soient leur forme et leur support, concernant un individu identifiable, notamment:
a) les renseignements relatifs à sa race, à son origine nationale ou ethnique, à sa couleur, à sa religion, à son âge ou à sa situation de famille;
b) les renseignements relatifs à son éducation, à son dossier médical, à son casier judiciaire, à ses antécédents professionnels ou à des opérations financières auxquelles il a participé;
c) tout numéro ou symbole, ou toute autre indication identificatrice, qui lui est propre;
d) son adresse, ses empreintes digitales ou son groupe sanguin;
e) ses opinions ou ses idées personnelles, à l'exclusion de celles qui portent sur un autre individu ou sur une proposition de subvention, de récompense ou de prix à octroyer à un autre individu par une institution fédérale, ou subdivision de celle-ci visée par règlement;
f) toute correspondance de nature, implicitement ou explicitement, privée ou confidentielle envoyée par lui à une institution fédérale, ainsi que les réponses de l'institution dans la mesure où elles révèlent le contenu de la correspondance de l'expéditeur; |
|
(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual,
(h) the views or opinions of another individual about a proposal for a grant, an award or a prize to be made to the individual by an institution or a part of an institution referred to in paragraph (e), but excluding the name of the other individual where it appears with the views or opinions of the other individual, and
(i) the name of the individual where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name itself would reveal information about the individual,
but, for the purposes of sections 7, 8 and 26 and section 19 of the Access to Information Act, does not include
(j) information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual including,
(i) the fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution,
(ii) the title, business address and telephone number of the individual,
(iii) the classification, salary range and responsibilities of the position held by the individual,
(iv) the name of the individual on a document prepared by the individual in the course of employment, and
(v) the personal opinions or views of the individual given in the course of employment, |
g) les idées ou opinions d'autrui sur lui;
h) les idées ou opinions d'un autre individu qui portent sur une proposition de subvention, de récompense ou de prix à lui octroyer par une institution, ou subdivision de celle-ci, visée à l'alinéa e), à l'exclusion du nom de cet autre individu si ce nom est mentionné avec les idées ou opinions;
i) son nom lorsque celui-ci est mentionné avec d'autres renseignements personnels le concernant ou lorsque la seule divulgation du nom révélerait des renseignements à son sujet;
toutefois, il demeure entendu que, pour l'application des articles 7, 8 et 26, et de l'article 19 de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information, les renseignements personnels ne comprennent pas les renseignements concernant_:
j) un cadre ou employé, actuel ou ancien, d'une institution fédérale et portant sur son poste ou ses fonctions, notamment:
(i) le fait même qu'il est ou a été employé par l'institution,
(ii) son titre et les adresse et numéro de téléphone de son lieu de travail,
(iii) la classification, l'éventail des salaires et les attributions de son poste,
(iv) son nom lorsque celui-ci figure sur un document qu'il a établi au cours de son emploi,
(v) les idées et opinions personnelles qu'il a exprimées au cours de son emploi; |
|
(k) information about an individual who is or was performing services under contract for a government institution that relates to the services performed, including the terms of the contract, the name of the individual and the opinions or views of the individual given in the course of the performance of those services,
(l) information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature, including the granting of a licence or permit, conferred on an individual, including the name of the individual and the exact nature of the benefit, and
(m) information about an individual who has been dead for more than twenty years;
8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.
(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed
(a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose;
(b) for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes its disclosure;
(c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information;
|
k) un individu qui, au titre d'un contrat, assure ou a assuré la prestation de services à une institution fédérale et portant sur la nature de la prestation, notamment les conditions du contrat, le nom de l'individu ainsi que les idées et opinions personnelles qu'il a exprimées au cours de la prestation;
l) des avantages financiers facultatifs, notamment la délivrance d'un permis ou d'une licence accordés à un individu, y compris le nom de celui-ci et la nature précise de ces avantages;
m) un individu décédé depuis plus de vingt ans.
8. (1) Les renseignements personnels qui relèvent d'une institution fédérale ne peuvent être communiqués, à défaut du consentement de l'individu qu'ils concernent, que conformément au présent article.
(2) Sous réserve d'autres lois fédérales, la communication des renseignements personnels qui relèvent d'une institution fédérale est autorisée dans les cas suivants:
a) communication aux fins auxquelles ils ont été recueillis ou préparés par l'institution ou pour les usages qui sont compatibles avec ces fins;
b) communication aux fins qui sont conformes avec les lois fédérales ou ceux de leurs règlements qui autorisent cette communication;
c) communication exigée par subpoena, mandat ou ordonnance d'un tribunal, d'une personne ou d'un organisme ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements ou exigée par des règles de procédure se rapportant à la production de renseignements; |
|
(d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada;
(e) to an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed;
(f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation;
(g) to a member of Parliament for the purpose of assisting the individual to whom the information relates in resolving a problem;
(h) to officers or employees of the institution for internal audit purposes, or to the office of the Comptroller General or any other person or body specified in the regulations for audit purposes;
(i) to the National Archives of Canada for archival purposes;
|
d) communication au procureur général du Canada pour usage dans des poursuites judiciaires intéressant la Couronne du chef du Canada ou le gouvernement fédéral;
e) communication à un organisme d'enquête déterminé par règlement et qui en fait la demande par écrit, en vue de faire respecter des lois fédérales ou provinciales ou pour la tenue d'enquêtes licites, pourvu que la demande précise les fins auxquelles les renseignements sont destinés et la nature des renseignements demandés;
f) communication aux termes d'accords ou d'ententes conclus d'une part entre le gouvernement du Canada ou un de ses organismes et, d'autre part, le gouvernement d'une province ou d'un État étranger, une organisation internationale d'États ou de gouvernements, ou un de leurs organismes, en vue de l'application des lois ou pour la tenue d'enquêtes licites;
g) communication à un parlementaire fédéral en vue d'aider l'individu concerné par les renseignements à résoudre un problème;
h) communication pour vérification interne au personnel de l'institution ou pour vérification comptable au bureau du contrôleur général ou à toute personne ou tout organisme déterminé par règlement;
i) communication aux Archives nationales du Canada pour dépôt; |
|
j) to any person or body for research or statistical purposes if the head of the government institution
(i) is satisfied that the purpose for which the information is disclosed cannot reasonably be accomplished unless the information is provided in a form that would identify the individual to whom it relates, and
(ii) obtains from the person or body a written undertaking that no subsequent disclosure of the information will be made in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual to whom it relates;
(k) to any aboriginal government, association of aboriginal people, Indian band, government institution or part thereof, or to any person acting on behalf of such government, association, band, institution or part thereof, for the purpose of researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada;
(l) to any government institution for the purpose of locating an individual in order to collect a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of Canada by that individual or make a payment owing to that individual by Her Majesty in right of Canada; and
|
j) communication à toute personne ou à tout organisme, pour des travaux de recherche ou de statistique, pourvu que soient réalisées les deux conditions suivantes:
(i) le responsable de l'institution est convaincu que les fins auxquelles les renseignements sont communiqués ne peuvent être normalement atteintes que si les renseignements sont donnés sous une forme qui permette d'identifier l'individu qu'ils concernent,
(ii) la personne ou l'organisme s'engagent par écrit auprès du responsable de l'institution à s'abstenir de toute communication ultérieure des renseignements tant que leur forme risque vraisemblablement de permettre l'identification de l'individu qu'ils concernent;
k) communication à tout gouvernement autochtone, association d'autochtones, bande d'Indiens, institution fédérale ou subdivision de celle-ci, ou à leur représentant, en vue de l'établissement des droits des peuples autochtones ou du règlement de leurs griefs;
l) communication à toute institution fédérale en vue de joindre un débiteur ou un créancier de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada et de recouvrer ou d'acquitter la créance; |
|
(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,
(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or
(ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.
. . .
12. (1) Subject to this Act, every individual who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to
(a) any personal information about the individual contained in a personal information bank; and
(b) any other personal information about the individual under the control of a government institution with respect to which the individual is able to provide sufficiently specific information on the location of the information as to render it reasonably retrievable by the government institution.
22. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1)
(a) that was obtained or prepared by any government institution, or part of any government institution, that is an investigative body specified in the regulations in the course of lawful investigations pertaining to |
m) communication à toute autre fin dans les cas où, de l'avis du responsable de l'institution:
(i) des raisons d'intérêt public justifieraient nettement une éventuelle violation de la vie privée,
(ii) l'individu concerné en tirerait un avantage certain.
. . .
12. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, tout citoyen canadien et tout résident permanent au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés ont le droit de se faire communiquer sur demande:
a) les renseignements personnels le concernant et versés dans un fichier de renseignements personnels;
b) les autres renseignements personnels le concernant et relevant d'une institution fédérale, dans la mesure où il peut fournir sur leur localisation des indications suffisamment précises pour que l'institution fédérale puisse les retrouver sans problèmes sérieux.
22. (1) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale peut refuser la communication des renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1):
a) soit qui remontent à moins de vingt ans lors de la demande et qui ont été obtenus ou préparés par une institution fédérale, ou par une subdivision d'une institution, qui constitue un organisme d'enquête déterminé par règlement, au cours d'enquêtes licites ayant trait: |
|
(i) the detection, prevention or suppression of crime,
(ii) the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province, or
(iii) activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, if the information came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request;
(b) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information
(i) relating to the existence or nature of a particular investigation,
(ii) that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, or
(iii) that was obtained or prepared in the course of an investigation; or
(c) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the security of penal institutions.
26. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) about an individual other than the individual who made the request, and shall refuse to disclose such information where the disclosure is prohibited under section 8. |
(i) à la détection, la prévention et la répression du crime,
(ii) aux activités destinées à faire respecter les lois fédérales ou provinciales,
(iii) aux activités soupçonnées de constituer des menaces envers la sécurité du Canada au sens de la Loi sur le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité;
b) soit dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de nuire aux activités destinées à faire respecter les lois fédérales ou provinciales ou au déroulement d'enquêtes licites, notamment:
(i) des renseignements relatifs à l'existence ou à la nature d'une enquête déterminée,
(ii) des renseignements qui permettraient de remonter à une source de renseignements confidentielle,
(iii) des renseignements obtenus ou préparés au cours d'une enquête;
c) soit dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de nuire à la sécurité des établissements pénitentiaires.
26. Le responsable d'une institution fédérale peut refuser la communication des renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) qui portent sur un autre individu que celui qui fait la demande et il est tenu de refuser cette communication dans les cas où elle est interdite en vertu de l'article 8. |
|
41. Any individual who has been refused access to personal information requested under subsection 12(1) may, if a complaint has been made to the Privacy Commissioner in respect of the refusal, apply to the Court for a review of the matter within forty-five days after the time the results of an investigation of the complaint by the Privacy Commissioner are reported to the complainant under subsection 35(2) or within such further time as the Court may, either before or after the expiration of those forty-five days, fix or allow.
47. In any proceedings before the Court arising from an application under section 41, 42 or 43, the burden of establishing that the head of a government institution is authorized to refuse to disclose personal information requested under subsection 12(1) or that a file should be included in a personal information bank designated as an exempt bank under section 18 shall be on the government institution concerned. |
41. L'individu qui s'est vu refuser communication de renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) et qui a déposé ou fait déposer une plainte à ce sujet devant le Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée peut, dans un délai de quarante-cinq jours suivant le compte rendu du Commissaire prévu au paragraphe 35(2), exercer un recours en révision de la décision de refus devant la Cour. La Cour peut, avant ou après l'expiration du délai, le proroger ou en autoriser la prorogation.
47. Dans les procédures découlant des recours prévus aux articles 41, 42 ou 43, la charge d'établir le bien-fondé du refus de communication de renseignements personnels ou le bien-fondé du versement de certains dossiers dans un fichier inconsultable classé comme tel en vertu de l'article 18 incombe à l'institution fédérale concernée. |
Analysis and Decision
[22] The respondent provided by way of Appendix "C" to its memorandum of fact and law a listing of the documents or portions thereof not disclosed to the applicant and the Privacy Act section under which each document was purported to be exempted from disclosure. The applicant confirmed that the respondent's listing accurately shows the information that has been excluded from disclosure.
[23] The applicant applied to this Court, after he filed a complaint with the Privacy Commission for a review of the matter pursuant to section 41 of the Act which reads:
41. Any individual who has been refused access to personal information requested under subsection 12(1) may, if a complaint has been made to the Privacy Commissioner in respect of the refusal, apply to the Court for a review of the matter within forty-five days after the time the results of an investigation of the complaint by the Privacy Commissioner are reported to the complainant under subsection 35(2) or within such further time as the Court may, either before or after the expiration of those forty-five days, fix or allow.
[24] The respondent submits that all of the documents in question were exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 26 of the Act and some were also exempt by virtue of paragraph 22(a)(i) of the Act.
[25] For ease of reference, section 8, paragraph 22(a)(i) and section 26 of the Act state as follows:
8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.
(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed
(a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose;
(b) for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes its disclosure;
(c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information;
(d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada;
(e) to an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed;
(f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation;
(g) to a member of Parliament for the purpose of assisting the individual to whom the information relates in resolving a problem;
(h) to officers or employees of the institution for internal audit purposes, or to the office of the Comptroller General or any other person or body specified in the regulations for audit purposes;
(i) to the National Archives of Canada for archival purposes;
j) to any person or body for research or statistical purposes if the head of the government institution
(i) is satisfied that the purpose for which the information is disclosed cannot reasonably be accomplished unless the information is provided in a form that would identify the individual to whom it relates, and
(ii) obtains from the person or body a written undertaking that no subsequent disclosure of the information will be made in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual to whom it relates;
(k) to any aboriginal government, association of aboriginal people, Indian band, government institution or part thereof, or to any person acting on behalf of such government, association, band, institution or part thereof, for the purpose of researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada;
(l) to any government institution for the purpose of locating an individual in order to collect a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of Canada by that individual or make a payment owing to that individual by Her Majesty in right of Canada; and
(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,
(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or
(ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.
22. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1)
(a) that was obtained or prepared by any government institution, or part of any government institution, that is an investigative body specified in the regulations in the course of lawful investigations pertaining to
(i) the detection, prevention or suppression of crime,
. . .
if the information came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request;
26. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) about an individual other than the individual who made the request, and shall refuse to disclose such information where the disclosure is prohibited under section 8.
[26] In Kelly v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1992) 53 F.T.R. 147 (T.D.), aff'd (1993) 154 N.R. 319 (F.C.A.), Strayer J. (as he then was) when speaking of the sections of the Act relating to discretionary exemptions, stated at page 149:
. . . It will be seen that these exemptions require two decisions by the head of an institution: first, a factual determination as to whether the material comes within the description of material potentially subject to being withheld from disclosure; and second, a discretionary decision as to whether that material should nevertheless be disclosed.
The first type of factual decision is one which, I believe, the Court can review and in respect of which it can substitute its own conclusion. This is subject to the need, I believe, for a measure of deference to the decisions of those whose institutional responsibilities put them in a better position to judge the matter. I include in this category decisions with respect to such matters as to whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to disrupt an individual's institutional program (see paragraph 24(a)) or could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety of individuals (see section 25). I have reviewed such factual decisions taken by the Correctional Service of Canada and am satisfied that with two small exceptions they should not be disturbed. Some of my reasons for so concluding are set out below.
The second type of decision is purely discretionary. In my view in reviewing such a decision the Court should not itself attempt to exercise the discretion de novo but should look at the document in question and the surrounding circumstances and simply consider whether the discretion appears to have been exercised in good faith and for some reason which is rationally connected to the purpose for which the discretion was granted. . . .
And at page 148 he stated:
There is very little jurisprudence on the nature of the Court's review power under section 48 of the Privacy Act, nor has that subject been seriously addressed in argument in this case. I will therefore go no further than necessary for present purposes in trying to define that role. It is true that section 47 places the burden of proof on the head of a government institution to show that he is authorized to refuse to disclose the personal information in question. The nature of this burden is adequately clear when the institution head simply invokes a mandatory exemption: in such a case the Court may look at the Act and the material exempted and determine whether as a matter of law that material comes within the description of material which the Act requires exempted [Footnote: Cf. Ternette v. Solicitor General [1984] 2 F.C. 486 at 501 (F.C.T.D.); and see Information Commissioner v. C.R.T.C. [1986] 3 F.C. 413 (T.D.) insofar as it concerns non-discretionary refusals to disclose under the Access to Information Act R.S.C. 1985 c.A-1.]. . . .
[27] In Ruby v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [1998] 2 F.C. 351 (T.D.), rev'd (2000), 256 N.R. 278 (F.C.A.), aff'd 2002 SCC 75, MacKay J. stated at paragraph 58:
I agree with counsel for the respondents that section 26 also sets a mandatory exemption, unless the information concerning another individual may be released in the circumstances provided by subsection 8(2) of the Act. . . .
Also in Ruby, supra, MacKay J. stated in relation to review of discretionary decisions at paragraph 22:
I am satisfied that unless a ground for questioning the exercise of discretion is raised by the applicant, this Court, in examination of documents to review decisions to withhold information, relies upon the public officer, the head of the institution or his delegate, in meeting the public duty to exercise discretion properly. Of course, if the exercise of discretion appears on its face to be perverse the Court may find reason itself to question the exercise of discretion. Absent that or a ground raised by the applicant, the Court assumes the exercise of discretion is proper. To do otherwise, by placing on the respondents an initial burden to demonstrate that proper exercise in every case, would result in an unmanageable process and would be inappropriate in this, as in any other, form of judicial review.
[28] The Federal Court of Appeal in 3430901 Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2002] 1 F.C. 421 (C.A.) reached a similar conclusion at paragraph 47:
In reviewing the refusal of a head of a government institution to disclose a record, the Court must determine on a standard of correctness whether the record requested falls within an exemption. However, when the Act confers on the head of a government institution a discretion to refuse to disclose an exempted record, the lawfulness of its exercise is reviewed on the grounds normally available in administrative law for the review of administrative discretion, including unreasonableness. I would only note that these conclusions are identical to those of La Forest J. in Dagg, supra, without conducting a functional or pragmatic analysis.
As discussed below, applying the pragmatic and functional approach to deciding the appropriate standard of review of the respondent's decision, I conclude that the decision with respect to whether a requested document falls within statutory exemption should be reviewed on a standard of correctness. The respondent's discretionary decision to refuse to disclose an exempted record should be reviewed by this Court on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter.
[29] Whether the record requested falls within an exemption
The four contextual factors to be applied in determining the standard of review are: (1) presence or absence of a privative clause or statutory right of appeal; (2) the expertise of the tribunal relative to that of the reviewing court on the issue in question; (3) the purpose of the legislation and the provision in particular; and (4) the nature of the question - - law, fact or mixed law and fact.
[30] Under factor one, there is a right to apply to this Court for a review of the decision. This indicates that a review is contemplated, although there is no statutory right of appeal. I would also note there is no privative clause. This factor leans towards a more exacting review of the determination of the respondent by the Court.
[31] Under factor two, however, the respondent has greater expertise than the Court in administering the exemption provisions of the Act and thus, must be recognized.
[32] Under factor three, the purpose of the Act, in the words of the legislation is "to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a government institution and that provide individuals with a right of access to that information." The courts have held that "personal information" should be given a broad meaning as opposed to a narrow construction. It should also be noted that the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves is to be protected. I am of the opinion that the purpose of the sections of the Act in question support a conclusion that a more exacting standard of review be applied to the respondent's decision.
[33] Under factor 4, it appears that the issue is whether the requested record falls within an exemption. This is a question of mixed law and fact, which points neither away from or towards great deference to the respondent's decision.
[34] In weighing all of the factors, I am of the view that the question of whether the requested record falls within an exemption must be reviewed on a standard of correctness.
[35] The respondent's exercise of discretion to disclose information
To determine the standard of review for the respondent's discretionary decisions, the same four factors need to be considered. Under factor 1 as noted earlier, there is no statutory right of appeal and no privative clause, although the Act does grant a statutory right of review.
[36] With respect to factor 2, the greater expertise of the respondent than the Courts with respect to the matters in issue is recognized.
[37] Under factor 3, the purpose of the Act, and the provision in particular, I note that the Act imposes no limits or guidelines on the respondent's exercise of discretion. Parliament has left the determination to the respondent within the policy boundaries of the Act. This favours deference to the respondent's determination.
[38] Factor 4 deals with the nature of the question - - law, mixed law and fact or fact. This question is a question of mixed law and fact.
[39] My conclusion after weighing all of the factors as they relate to the respondent's discretionary decision-making under subparagraph 22(1)(a)(i) of the Act is that a standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter should apply.
[40] Finally, section 47 of the Act states the burden of proof that exists on judicial review pursuant to section 41. Section 47 reads:
In any proceedings before the Court arising from an application under section 41, 42 or 43, the burden of establishing that the head of a government institution is authorized to refuse to disclose personal information requested under subsection 12(1) or that a file should be included in a personal information bank designated as an exempt bank under section 18 shall be on the government institution concerned.
[41] I am mindful of the words of Strayer J. (as he then was) in Kelly, supra at paragraph 4:
In providing my reasons I must, of course, have regard to s. 46 of the Privacy Act which enjoins the court to avoid the disclosure of information that the head of a government institution is authorized to refuse to disclose. I must not, therefore, in explaining why I have upheld the respondent's reliance on certain exemptions reveal the very information which I find to have been properly withheld.
[42] Against the legal background that I have outlined, I carefully reviewed all of the material filed before me including:
1. The affidavit of Charles Thurlow and the attached exhibits;
2. The confidential affidavit of Anthony Cichelly, sworn to July 12, 2002 and the exhibits annexed thereto, being the requested documents in their entirety;
3. The supplemental confidential affidavit of Anthony Cichelly, sworn to February 6, 2003 and the exhibit annexed thereto.
[43] After this careful review of all of the information withheld and after considering the written and oral submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the exemptions claimed by the respondent were properly claimed under section 26 of the Act and where applicable, under subparagraph 22(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
[44] The applicant's application is therefore dismissed.
[45] There shall be no award as to costs as the applicant withdrew his challenge to a significant number of documents prior to this proceeding, thereby simplifying the matters in dispute.
ORDER
[46] IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The applicant's application is dismissed.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
December 2, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-701-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHARLES THURLOW
- and -
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA on behalf
of the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: Wednesday, June 4, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF O'KEEFE J.
DATED: Tuesday, December 2, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Erica Green
FOR APPLICANT
Scott McCrossin
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Allen, Peers & Green
Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
FOR APPLICANT
Department of Justice
Halifax, Nova Scotia
FOR RESPONDENT