Blank v. Canada (Minister of the Environment)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Russell, J.
• Citation: (2006), 300 F.T.R. 273 (FC),2006 FC 1253
• Date: 01 June 2006

Blank v. Can. (2006), 300 F.T.R. 273 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.044

Sheldon Blank (applicant) v. The Minister of the Environment (respondent)

(T-567-05; 2006 FC 1253)

Indexed As: Blank v. Canada (Minister of the Environment)

Federal Court

Russell, J.

October 19, 2006.

Summary:

The Access to Information and Privacy Office of Environment Canada refused to disclose certain records in response to the applicant's request for access under s. 6 of the Access to Information Act. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court determined which documents should be released to the applicant.

Crown - Topic 7171

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Disclosure - Confidential information supplied by third party - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Crown - Topic 7202

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Interpretation - The Federal Court stated that in dealing with exemptions from disclosure under the Access to Information Act (Can.), there were certain interpretive general principles to be kept in mind - These included: (1) the Act must be interpreted in the light of the fundamental principle that government information should be available to the public, and that exceptions to the public's right of access should be "limited and specific"; (2) public access to government information should not be frustrated by the courts except upon the clearest of grounds - Any doubt should be resolved in favour of disclosure, with the burden of persuasion resting upon the party resisting disclosure; and (3) although the Act creates a right of access, that right is not absolute - It must be examined in light of other provisions of the Act and the specific exemptions claimed - See paragraphs 29 to 32.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - The Access to Information and Privacy Office of Environment Canada (ATIP-EC) refused to disclose certain records in response to the applicant's request for access under s. 6 of the Access to Information Act - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court discussed the exemptions claimed by the ATIP-EC under ss. 16(1)(b) (law enforcement and investigations), s. 19 (personal information), s. 20(1)(b) (third party information), s. 21(1) (operations of government), and s. 23 (solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege), and determined which documents were to be released - See paragraphs 1 to 74.

Crown - Topic 7204.1

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Interference with operations of institution - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Crown - Topic 7206

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Personal information - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Crown - Topic 7209

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Information re investigative techniques or harmful to law enforcement - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review from a decision either to release or to refuse to release information under the Access to Information Act (Can.) - See paragraphs 24 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Hi-Rise Group Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) (2004), 318 N.R. 242; 2004 FCA 99, refd to. [para. 16].

Kelly v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al. (1992), 53 F.T.R. 147; 6 Admin. L.R.(2d) 54 (T.D.), affd. (1993), 154 N.R. 319 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

3430901 Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2002] 1 F.C. 421; 282 N.R. 284; 2001 FCA 421, leave to appeal refused [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 537 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Thurlow v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al. (2003), 242 F.T.R. 214; 2003 FC 1414, refd to. [para. 26].

Elomari v. President of the Canadian Space Agency, [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 896; 2006 FC 863, refd to. [para. 26].

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. 30].

Maislin Industries Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce), [1984] 1 F.C. 939; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 417 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Rubin v. Clerk of the Privy Council (Can.), [1994] 2 F.C. 707; 167 N.R. 43 (F.C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 6; 191 N.R. 394, refd to. [para.32].

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (President), [1989] 1 F.C. 265; 86 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1988] 3 F.C. 551; 20 F.T.R. 314 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Canadian Football League v. Canada (Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sports) and Shoalts, [1989] 2 F.C. 480; 24 F.T.R. 62 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 745, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Cox and Railton (1884), 14 Q.B.D. 153, refd to. [para. 33].

K-West Estates Ltd. v. Linemayr, McCandless and Zacharias, [1984] 4 W.W.R. 375; 54 B.C.L.R. 60 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Montana Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1989] 1 F.C. 143; 18 F.T.R. 15; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1999] 4 F.C. 245; 168 F.T.R. 49; 99 D.T.C. 5337 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to.[para. 63].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 65].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada, generally [para. 33].

Counsel:

Sheldon Blank, on his own behalf;

Scott D. Farlinger, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This matter was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on June 1, 2006, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 19, 2006.