Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., (2008) 376 N.R. 327 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 17, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2008), 376 N.R. 327 (SCC);2008 SCC 44

Blood Tribe Health v. Privacy Commr. (2008), 376 N.R. 327 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. JL.038

Privacy Commissioner of Canada (appellant) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Information Commissioner of Canada, New Brunswick Office of the Ombudsman, Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Advocate's Society, Canadian Bar Association and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (intervenors)

(31755; 2008 SCC 44; 2008 CSC 44)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

July 17, 2008.

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, in a judgment reported (2005), 265 F.T.R. 276, 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 (PIPEDA), had authority to compel production of documents over which solicitor-client privilege was claimed for the purpose of verifying that claim. The Department appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2006), 354 N.R. 302, allowed the appeal, set aside the order and vacated the Commissioner's production order. The Commissioner appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The PIPEDA did not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner to order the production and examination of documents for which solicitor-client privilege was claimed for the purpose of verifying the 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 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 production of the documents to the Commissioner for the purpose of verifying the privilege claim - The institution sought judicial review, challenging the legality of the compelled production order - The trial judge, applying a purposive and liberal interpretation, and having regard to the overall scheme of the Act and the Commissioner's responsibility to conduct an effective investigation, held that the Commissioner was entitled to production of documents for which solicitor-client privilege was claimed for the limited purpose of verifying the claim - The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed - The trial judge erred in adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation of s. 12(1)(a) and (c) of the Act - Recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Canada on production of documents for which solicitor-client privilege was claimed called for a restrictive interpretation of the Act, requiring express language to empower the Commissioner to abrogate solicitor-client privilege - Absent express power, such power could not be implied - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, stating that "when the appropriate principles of statutory interpretation are applied to the general language of the PIPEDA, the right of the individual or organization that is the target of the complaint to keep solicitor-client confidences confidential must prevail. ... Express words are necessary to permit a regulator or other statutory official to 'pierce' the privilege. Such clear and explicit language does not appear in the PIPEDA".

Evidence - Topic 4241

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "while the solicitor-client privilege may have started life as a rule of evidence, it is now unquestionably a rule of substance applicable to all interactions between a client and his or her lawyer when the lawyer is engaged in providing legal advice or otherwise acting as a lawyer rather than as a business counsellor or in some other non-legal capacity. ... our Court has held that legislative language that may (if broadly construed) allow incursions on solicitor-client privilege must be interpreted restrictively. The privilege cannot be abrogated by inference." - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

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. 8].

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. 9].

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. 9].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 9].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 10].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Gruenke - see R. v. Fosty and Gruenke.

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 10].

Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler ltée v. Sociéte intermunicipale de gestion et d'élimination des déchets (SIGED) Inc., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 456; 318 N.R. 111; 2004 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 10].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 10].

Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 32; 350 N.R. 154; 214 O.A.C. 377; 2006 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 10].

Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. et al. (2006), 352 N.R. 1; 215 O.A.C. 266; 2006 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 10].

Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc. et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 157; 372 N.R. 95; 252 B.C.A.C. 1; 422 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 10].

Juman v. Doucette - see Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc. et al.

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. 10].

Englander v. Telus Communications Inc., [2004] 2 F.C.R. 572; 328 N.R. 297; 2004 FCA 387, refd to. [para. 12].

Ansell Canada Inc. v. Ions World Corp. (1998), 83 O.T.C. 91; 28 C.P.C.(4th) 60 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 17].

Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 441; 347 N.R. 1; 2006 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 20].

Pocklington Foods Inc. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer), [1993] 5 W.W.R. 710; 135 A.R. 363; 33 W.A.C. 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 27].

Canada (Minister of the Environment) v. Information Commissioner (Can.) (2000), 256 N.R. 162; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 127 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.), [2005] 4 F.C.R. 673; 335 N.R. 8; 2005 FCA 199, refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, sect. 9(3)(a) [para. 4]; sect. 12(1)(c) [para. 21]; sect. 20(5) [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 288, 289 [para. 27].

Lawson, Ian B., Privacy and Free Enterprise: The Legal Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector (2nd Ed. 1997), p. 32 [para. 13].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 327, 328 [para. 27].

Counsel:

Steven Welchner and Patricia Kosseim, for the appellant;

Eugene Creighton, Q.C., Gary Befus and Ken McLeod, for the respondent;

Christopher Rupar, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Bruce T. MacIntosh, Q.C., Angus Gibbon and Garner A. Groome, for the intervenor, Federation of Law Societies of Canada;

Marlys Edwardh, Daniel Brunet and Diane Therrien, for the intervenor, Information Commissioner of Canada;

Christian Whalen, for the intervenor, New Brunswick Office of the Ombudsman;

Susan E. Ross, for the intervenor, Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia;

William S. Challis and Stephen McCammon, for intervenor, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario;

Benjamin Zarnett and Julie Rosenthal, for the intervenor, Advocates' Society;

Mahmud Jamal and Craig Lockwood, for the intervenor, Canadian Bar Association;

Ritu Khullar and Vanessa Cosco, for the intervenor, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Welchner Law Office, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

MacIntosh, MacDonnell & MacDonald, New Glasgow, N.S., for the intervenor, Federation of Law Societies of Canada;

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

New Brunswick Office of the Ombudsman, Fredericton, N.B., for the intervenor, New Brunswick Office of the Ombudsman;

Susan E. Ross, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia;

Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario;

Goodmans, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Advocates' Society;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Bar Association;

Chivers Carpenter, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.

This appeal was heard on February 21, 2008, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On July 17, 2008, Binnie, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.