Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., 2005 FC 328

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 18, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2005 FC 328;(2005), 265 F.T.R. 276 (FC)

Blood Tribe Health v. Privacy Commr. (2005), 265 F.T.R. 276 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.020

Blood Tribe Department of Health (applicant) v. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Annette J. Soup (respondents)

(T-2222-03; 2005 FC 328)

Indexed As: Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al.

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

March 8, 2005.

Summary:

A former Department employee sought access to personal information in her file. The Department denied access. The employee filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. The Department claimed solicitor-client privilege respecting a "bundle of letters" and was not prepared to disclose the documents to the employee or any third party, including the Privacy Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner ordered production of the "bundle of letters" to permit verification of whether solicitor-client privilege was established. The Department applied for judicial review of the Assistant Commissioner's order, challenging the legality of the order.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The standard of review of the Assistant Commissioner's production order was correctness. The court held that the Privacy Commissioner, in investigating a complaint under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, had authority to compel production of documents over which solicitor-client privilege was claimed for the purpose of verifying that claim.

Crown - Topic 7146

Examination of public documents - Office of commissioner - Investigative powers - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege - An institution refused a former employee access to certain documents in her personnel file on the ground of solicitor-client privilege - In investigating the employee's complaint under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the Assistant Commissioner ordered that the institution produce the documents to the Commissioner for the purpose of verifying the solicitor-client privilege claim - The institution sought judicial review, challenging the legality of the compelled production order - The Federal Court held that the standard of review of the Assistant Commissioner's decision was correctness - The decision was correct - The court rejected the submission that the documents should be presumed to be protected by solicitor-client privilege without examination by the Commissioner - Having regard to the overall scheme of the Act and the Commissioner's responsibility to conduct an effective investigation, the Commissioner was entitled to production of the documents for which solicitor-client privilege was claimed for the limited purpose of verifying the claim.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 15].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 15].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 15].

Echo Bay Mines Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2003), 308 N.R. 135; 2003 FCA 270, refd to. [para. 16].

Englander v. Telus Communications Inc. (2004), 328 N.R. 297 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Languages (Can.) et al. (1998), 157 F.T.R. 15 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 261 N.R. 19 (F.C.A.), affd. [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282, refd to. [para. 20].

Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al. (2004), 254 F.T.R. 169 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 181; 255 F.T.R. 56; 2004 FC 431, refd to. [para. 22].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 24].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 164 O.A.C. 280; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 40 C.R.(5th) 19, refd to. [para. 25].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Lyons v. Bellamy (2004), 183 O.A.C. 273; 70 O.R.(3d) 39 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Rowat v. Information Commissioner (Can.) et al. (2000), 193 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 37].

Maranda v. Leblanc, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 311 N.R. 357; 2003 SCC 67, dist. [para. 40].

Shell Canada Ltd., Re, [1975] F.C. 184; 7 N.R. 157 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 42].

Legal Services Society (B.C.) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al. (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 234; 300 W.A.C. 234; 14 B.C.L.R.(4th) 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (2001), 293 A.R. 73; 257 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), dist. [para. 35].

Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (Trustee) v. Verchere - see Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re.

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, sect. 3 [para. 13]; sect. 12(1)(a), sect. 12(1)(c) [para. 14]; sect. 20(1) [para. 46]; sect. 36(2) [para. 30].

Counsel:

Gary Befus, for the applicant;

Steve Welchner and Nathalie Daigle, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Walsh Wilkins Creighton, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicant;

Nelligan O'Brien Payne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard on November 18, 2004, at Calgary, Alberta, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 8, 2005.