Alberta et al. v. Krushell et al.

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Bielby, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 ABQB 252
• Citation: (2003), 340 A.R. 227 (QB),2003 ABQB 252,[2003] 7 WWR 174,14 Alta LR (4th) 356,340 AR 227,(2003), 340 AR 227 (QB),340 A.R. 227
• Date: 25 February 2003

Alta. v. Krushell (2003), 340 A.R. 227 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AP.013

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Alberta (applicants) v. Jay Krushell and The Information and Privacy Commissioner (respondents)

(Action No. 0203 19075; 2003 ABQB 252)

Indexed As: Alberta et al. v. Krushell et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Bielby, J.

March 18, 2003.

Summary:

Krushell requested access to the lists of names of accused persons, the charges they faced and ancillary information that were produced daily for each criminal docket court in each Provincial Court from 1990 to 2005 (the criminal dockets). Alberta Justice denied the request. The Privacy Commissioner held that the criminal dockets were subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and did not fall within any of the exclusions in s. 4 of the Act. The Crown applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, holding that the criminal dockets were excluded from the operation of the Act pursuant to s. 4(1)(a).

Crown - Topic 7164

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Application of - Section 4(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provided that the Act did not apply to, inter alia, "information in a court file" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the information in the daily Provincial Court criminal court dockets (i.e., accused's names, charges and ancillary information) constituted "information in a court file" and was excluded from the operation of the Act under s. 4(1)(a) - The exclusion for "information in a court file" was not limited to the contents of the paper file, but included any information taken from the file and compiled in another format, including a criminal docket - The only purpose described in s. 2 of the Act that related to "information in a court file" was that of controlling disclosure of information - The legislative purpose in excluding information in court files included avoiding possible mischief resulting from public access to names of unconvicted accused, defamation arising from mistaken identity, courthouse security concerns and judge-shopping.

Crown - Topic 7209.2

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Information in a court file - [See Crown - Topic 7164 ].

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - The Privacy Commissioner held that daily criminal court dockets (i.e., accused's names, charges and ancillary information) were subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and did not fall within any of the exclusions in s. 4 of the Act - The Crown applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review was correctness - The Privacy Commissioner had no special expertise in determining the legislature's intent in creating exceptions to the operation of the Act - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Macdonell v. Québec (Commission d'accès à l'information) (2002), 294 N.R. 238 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner) (2003), 301 N.R. 41 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

University of Alberta v. Pylypiuk et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 300; 2 Alta. L.R.(4th) 332 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, (1989), 489 U.S. 749; 109 S.Ct. 1468 (U.S.S.C., 1989), refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25, sect. 4(1)(a) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Odgers, Construction of Deeds and Statutes (1967), p. 326 [para. 27].

Sullivan, Ruth, Driedger on the Construction on Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 13 [para. 41]; 51 [para. 37]; 432 [para. 27].

Counsel:

Tim Hurlburt, for the applicants;

Ritu Khullar, for the Information and Privacy Commissioner;

Jay Krushell, representing himself.

This application was heard on February 25, 2003, by Bielby, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on March 18, 2003.