131 Queen Street Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2007) 334 F.T.R. 298 (FC)

• Judge: Heneghan, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 334 F.T.R. 298 (FC);2007 FC 347

131 Queen Street Ltd. v. Can. (A.G.) (2007), 334 F.T.R. 298 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.017

131 Queen Street Limited (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1349-05; 2007 FC 347)

Indexed As: 131 Queen Street Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Heneghan, J.

April 11, 2007.

Summary:

The applicant applied under s. 44 of the Access to Information Act for judicial review of a decision by Public Works and Government Services Canada to disclose certain information concerning the business affairs of the applicant, in response to a request made under the Act.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Crown - Topic 7207

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Confidentiality - The applicant and Morguard leased premises to the National Capital Commission (NCC) - This document in the Head Lease was referred to as the Sub-Lease - NCC subleased the premises to Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) - The Head Lease and the Sub-Lease were registered at the Land Registry Office - PWGSC received an Access to Information Act request regarding the premises - The requester sought release of information relating to the term of the Sub-Lease, the rental rate, the parking costs and number of stalls provided, and any allowances that could have been granted to PWGSC - PWGSC granted the request - The applicant invoked ss. 20(1)(b) (confidential information supplied to a government by a third party), 20(1)(c) (financial or competitive disadvantage) and 20(1)(d) (interference with contractual negotiations), and objected to disclosure of the following: (1) the term and renewal of the Sub-Lease; (2) the assignment of the option to purchase; (3) specific conditions of the tenants; (4) construction delays; (5) option to extend; (6) option to purchase; (7) parking; (8) dispute resolution; and (9) set-off - The Federal Court dismissed the objection - The applicant failed to meet its "heavy" evidentiary burden to justify an exemption on the basis of either ss. 20(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Act - See paragraphs 1 to 47.

Crown - Topic 7210

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Financial loss - [See Crown - Topic 7207 ].

Crown - Topic 7212

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Prejudice to negotiations - [See Crown - Topic 7207 ].

Crown - Topic 7214.1

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information - [See Crown - Topic 7207 ].

Cases Noticed:

Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1989), 27 F.T.R. 194; 27 C.P.R.(3d) 180 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canada Packers Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al., [1989] 1 F.C. 47; 87 N.R. 81 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canadian Pacific Hotels Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 249 F.T.R. 151 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Perez Bramalea Ltd. v. National Capital Commission, [1995] F.C.J. No. 63 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 66; 301 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 14].

St. Joseph Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) (2002), 218 F.T.R. 41 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Canadian Jewish Congress v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1996] 1 F.C. 268; 102 F.T.R. 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Hutton v. Canada (Minister of Natural Resources) et al. (1997), 137 F.T.R. 110 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 4 F.C. 3; 230 F.T.R. 272 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (2006), 291 F.T.R. 87; 45 Admin. L.R.(4th) 157 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Mead Johnson Nutritionals v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 163; 2005 FC 235, refd to. [para. 22].

Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Supply and Services) (1988), 24 F.T.R. 32 (T.D.), affd. (1990), 107 N.R. 89 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

SNC-Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) (1994), 79 F.T.R. 113 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Prime Minister (Can.), [1993] 1 F.C. 427; 57 F.T.R. 180 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Halifax Development Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), [1994] F.C.J. No. 2035 (T.D.), consd. [para. 33].

SNC Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister for International Co-operation) et al. (2003), 234 F.T.R. 294 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Rubin v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2001), 210 F.T.R. 84 (T.D.), consd. [para. 39].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. National Capital Commission (1998), 147 F.T.R. 264 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Société Gamma Inc. v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 79 F.T.R. 42 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of External Affairs), [1990] 3 F.C. 665; 35 F.T.R. 177 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 20(1)(b), sect. 20(1)(c), sect. 20(1)(d) [para. 27].

Counsel:

Benjamin Mills, for the applicant;

Alysia Davies, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 29, 2007, by Heneghan, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 11, 2007.