3430901 Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), (1999) 177 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

• Judge: Sharlow, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 17, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 177 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

3430901 Can. Inc. v. Can. (1999), 177 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.066

3430901 Canada Inc. and Telezone Inc. (applicants) v. The Minister of Industry Canada (respondent)

(T-648-98)

The Information Commissioner of Canada (applicant) v. The Minister of Industry Canada (respondent)

(T-650-98)

Indexed As: 3430901 Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Industry)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Sharlow, J.

November 17, 1999.

Summary:

Telezone unsuccessfully applied for a personal communications services licence. Telezone applied under the Access to Infor­mation Act to compel the Minister of Indus­try to disclose documents relating to the decision. The Minister refused access. Tele­zone complained to the Information Com­missioner who recommended disclosure. The Minister refused complete disclosure. Tele­zone applied for judicial review. The Infor­mation Commissioner also applied for judi­cial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the applications.

Crown - Topic 7208

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Advice by public servants - The Minister of Industry invited applications for personal communi­cations services licences - A working group evaluated the 17 applications and reported to the selection committee - The selection committee ranked the applica­tions according to selection criteria and made recommendations to the Minister - The Minister awarded licences - An un­success­ful applicant and the Information Commis­sioner requested disclosure of material respecting the deliberations of the working group, the selection committee and the Minister - The Minister refused disclosure pursuant to s. 21(1)(a) or (b) of the Access to Information Act - The Fed­eral Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Min­ister properly exercised his discretion where the undisclosed material constituted advice, recommendations or accounts of deliberations by Ministry officials and fell within the statutory ex­ceptions.

Crown - Topic 7211

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Consultations or deliberations by government officials - [See Crown - Topic 7208 ].

Crown - Topic 7285

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Practice - Costs - An unsuccessful applicant for a personal com­munications services licence sought dis­closure of information from the Minister of Industry - The Information Commis­sioner recommended disclosure - The Minister declined to disclose several docu­ments - The applicant and the Information Com­missioner unsuccessfully sought judi­cial review - Although unsuccessful, they claimed costs pursuant to s. 53(2) of the Access to Information Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, awarded the applicant and the Information Com­missioner costs - See paragraphs 114 to 123.

Cases Noticed:

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing (President), [1989] 1 F.C. 265; 86 N.R. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3].

Canadian Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1999), 168 F.T.R. 49; 99 D.T.C. 5337 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 7].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 7].

Kelly v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1992), 53 F.T.R. 147 (T.D.), affd. 154 N.R. 319 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 9].

Canadian Jewish Congress v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1996] 1 F.C. 268; 102 F.T.R. 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 9].

Information Commissioner (Can.) et al. v. Immigration and Refugee Board (Can.) (1997), 140 F.T.R. 140 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 10].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1999), 240 N.R. 244 (F.C.A.), affing. (1996), 120 F.T.R. 207 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 11].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Cana­dian Radio-Television and Telecom­munications Commission (Chairman) et al., [1986] 3 F.C. 413; 1 F.T.R. 317 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 15].

Ethier v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, [1993] 2 F.C. 659; 151 N.R. 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

Davidson v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1989] 2 F.C. 341; 98 N.R. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 34].

Bland v. National Capital Commission, [1993] 1 F.C. 541; 151 N.R. 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 2(1), sect. 4(1) [para. 17]; sect. 21(1)(a), sect. 21(1)(b) [para. 21]; sect. 25 [para. 18]; sect. 48 [para. 94]; sect. 49 [para. 23]; sect. 53(2) [para. 114].

Counsel:

David W. Scott, George D. Hunter and Larry A. Elliott, for the applicants;

Daniel Brunet and Nathalie Daigle, for the applicant;

Christopher Rupar, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden Elliott Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

Information Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These applications were heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 4, 5, and 7, 1999, before Sharlow, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on November 17, 1999.