Business Watch International Inc. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., (2009) 468 A.R. 362 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 468 A.R. 362 (QB);2009 ABQB 10

Business Watch Intl. Inc. v. Privacy Commr. (2009), 468 A.R. 362 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. JA.144

In The Matter Of a complaint made to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta under the Personal Information Protection Act, R.S.A. 2003, C. P-6.5 ("PIPA") and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, C. F-25 ("FOIP Act");

And In The Matter Of a public oral inquiry into case file numbers P0363, F3561 and F3562 pursuant to a complaint made by Kelly Buryniuk regarding the disclosure of personal information by organization EMU Inc., operating as Cash Converters (Millwoods) and regarding the affected parties the City of Edmonton, the Edmonton Police Service and Business Watch International and regarding the intervenors, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police;

And In The Matter Of orders F2007-001, F2007-002 and P2007-001 by the Information and Privacy Commissioner Frank Work issued on February 15, 2008.

Business Watch International Inc. (applicant) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner and Kelly Buryniuk (respondents)

(0803 04984; 0803 04558; 0803 04581; 2009 ABQB 10)

Indexed As: Business Watch International Inc. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

January 8, 2009.

Summary:

The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS). Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database. Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) executed a contract with the City pursuant to which BWI managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS. Buryniuk, an Edmonton pawnshop owner, complained to the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the Business License Bylaw. The Commissioner ruled that the personal information in the hands of BWI was collected for the City of Edmonton and was in the custody of the City, and BWI was an employee of the City. The Commissioner found that the City did not have the authority to require second hand stores and pawnshops to upload a pawnor's personal information to the BWI database, and that the City had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard pawnors' personal information. The Commissioner concluded that the City of Edmonton and the EPS contravened ss. 33 and 34 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the City to destroy BWI's database. In this application for judicial review, the City, the EPS and BWI asked the court to quash the Commissioner's orders.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Commissioner's orders.

Administrative Law - Topic 3210

Judicial review - General - Jurisdictional issues - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "jurisdiction is of such fundamental importance to the validity of a tribunal's decision that it would be illogical and unfair to prevent a litigant from raising a jurisdictional argument on the review of a tribunal's decision. In the absence of jurisdiction, there is no valid decision to review. Decisions which speak of the general reluctance of a reviewing court to address an issue that was not raised before the tribunal must be carefully scrutinized with respect to the nature of the issue that was not raised; decisions which are not dealing specifically with jurisdiction or vires are not relevant to a jurisdictional debate" - The court also held that the issue of vires was not waivable and that, generally, parties could not confer jurisdiction on a statutory tribunal which did not, as a matter of law, have capacity - See paragraphs 36 to 37.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.2

Judicial review - General - Practice - Issues not raised before tribunal - An application for judicial review was brought to quash orders made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner - One issue was whether the Commissioner lost jurisdiction by failing to comply with the 90 day time limit under either the Personal Information Protection Act or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - The Commissioner asserted that the applicants should be precluded from raising the issue because it was not raised at the hearing before the Commissioner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the applicants were not precluded from raising the issue - The issue of jurisdiction had come to the Commissioner's attention, the Commissioner was not prejudiced by the failure to have raised the issue of jurisdiction at the hearing, and there was no need for an improved evidentiary basis to enable the court to address the jurisdictional arguments - The court agreed that parties should be encouraged to raise jurisdictional challenges in a timely way, but stated that "if a tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with an issue, not even the agreement of the parties can confer jurisdiction on the tribunal" - See paragraphs 34 to 43.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.2

Judicial review - General - Practice - Issues not raised before tribunal - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - After receiving a complaint about the bylaw, the Information and Privacy Commissioner held that the City of Edmonton and the EPS contravened ss. 33 and 34 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the City to destroy BWI's database - On an application for judicial review, the City, the EPS and BWI sought to quash the Commissioner's orders - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the applicants were not precluded from raising the issue of whether the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering the City to destroy BWI's database even though they did not raise that issue at the hearing before the Commissioner - The applicants could not foresee that the Commissioner would make such an order and it was therefore impossible for them to make reasonable arguments as to that specific remedy - Moreover, the Commissioner was not prejudiced by the raising, on judicial review, of concerns about jurisdiction to grant the remedy chosen - The issue of whether the remedy was within or without jurisdiction was essentially a matter of law - The Commissioner was able to make full answer and response to the validity of the remedy imposed - See paragraphs 96 to 98.

Municipal Law - Topic 1302

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Legislation (incl. applicability) - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Emonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - The Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled that the personal information in the hands of BWI was collected for the City of Edmonton and was in the custody of the City - The Commissioner held that the City and EPS contravened ss. 33 and 34 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the City to destroy BWI's database - On an application for judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the City and the EPS were separate and distinct public bodies for the purposes of privacy law and that the Commissioner's incorrect analysis of the relationship between the City and the EPS caused the Commissioner to make an error in determining which privacy statutes applied - Pawnshops were not public bodies - Their only connection to the municipality was through Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw - Pawnshops collected certain personal information from pawnors - That collection was made pursuant to legislation requiring the collection of information - That process was regulated by the Personal Information Protection Act, not the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - See paragraphs 83 to 85.

Municipal Law - Topic 1304

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Custody or control - What constitutes - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - The Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled that the personal information in the hands of BWI was collected for the City of Edmonton and was in the custody of the City, and BWI was an employee of the City - The Commissioner found that the City did not have the authority to require second hand stores and pawnshops to upload a pawnor's personal information to the BWI database, and that the City had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard pawnors' personal information - The Commissioner concluded that the City of Edmonton and EPS contravened ss. 33 and 34 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the City to destroy BWI's database - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Commissioner's orders - The Commissioner's decision that the personal information in the BWI database was in the custody and control of the City of Edmonton was incorrect - The City and the EPS were separate and distinct public bodies for the purposes of privacy law - In the context of a privacy analysis, personal information from pawnors uploaded by pawnshops into the BWI database was not in the custody or control of the City - Rather, it was in the custody and control of the EPS - Also, BWI was not an employee of the City, but, according to the general law, a contractor with the EPS, and according to privacy law, an employee of EPS - See paragraphs 74 to 85.

Municipal Law - Topic 1325

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Complaints - A complaint was made to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in January 2006 - The Commissioner conducted an inquiry and made certain orders in February 2008 - An application for judicial review was brought to quash the Commissioner's orders - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Commissioner's decision that he did not lose jurisdiction by failing to comply with the 90 day time limit under either the Personal Information Protection Act or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the statutory time limits were merely directory, was reasonable - Among the circumstances relevant to the analysis were: the jurisdictional issue was putative loss of jurisdiction rather than an original failure of jurisdiction; the complainant did not complain about the Commissioner's delay; and, if the process were terminated, it could be easily re-instituted and the only result would be longer delay - The Commissioner's conclusion that, in all the circumstances here, the statutory time limits were merely directory rather than mandatory was not only reasonable, but was also correct - See paragraphs 6 and 44 to 60.

Municipal Law - Topic 1335

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Judicial review - An application for judicial review was brought to quash orders made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Municipal law lies at the core of the Commissioner's substantive decision. Because municipal law is not within the Commissioner's general or specific expertise and because the Commissioner's decision includes a determination relating to employment law which is of central importance to the legal system, the Commissioner's decision is reviewed on the basis of correctness" - See paragraph 7.

Municipal Law - Topic 1496

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Licensing and regulating of businesses - [See both Municipal Law - Topic 3763 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3763

Bylaws - Particular bylaws (incl. scope of) - Pawnshop bylaw - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - The Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled that the personal information in the hands of BWI was collected for the City of Edmonton and was in the custody of the City, and BWI was an employee of the City - The Commissioner found that the City did not have the authority to require second hand stores and pawnshops to upload a pawnor's personal information to the BWI database, and that the City had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard pawnors' personal information - The Commissioner concluded that the City and EPS contravened ss. 33 and 34 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the City to destroy BWI's database - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Commissioner's orders - The court stated that "The Commissioner erred in his interpretation of municipal law as it relates to privacy law: a municipal police force is, for purposes of privacy law, a public body separate from its host municipality. Many conclusions flow from this separation: personal information collected by a private organization - such as a pawnshop or a second hand store - which is collected pursuant to legislative authority - here a municipal bylaw - and is properly transmitted to a police force - here pursuant to a standing request for information - and which is properly received by the public body which is the police service - here because the EPS was expressly authorized to receive it and because it is information collected for the purposes of law enforcement - is personal information which is properly in the hands of the police service" - Also, since BWI was not an employee of the City, the Commissioner could not order the City to destroy BWI's database - See paragraphs 7 and 71 to 104.

Municipal Law - Topic 3763

Bylaws - Particular bylaws (incl. scope of) - Pawnshop bylaw - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Pursuant to the terms of the bylaw, Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - The Information and Privacy Commissioner held, inter alia, that the City did not have the authority to require second hand stores and pawnshops to upload a pawnor's personal information to the BWI database - On an application for judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Commissioner's conclusion that the bylaw did not authorize the City Manager to require pawnshops and second hand stores to upload the personal information electronically to BWI was incorrect - The Commissioner had to proceed on the basis that the bylaw was validly enacted - The bylaw authorized the City Manager to dictate forms of reporting - Electronic reporting was merely a means or mechanism of reporting - See paragraphs 64 to 70.

Statutes - Topic 5164

Operation and effect - Enabling Acts - Directory Acts - What constitutes - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1325 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 9404

Protection of personal information and electronic documents - General - Application and interpretation of legislation (e.g., Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act) - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1302 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 9421

Protection of personal information and electronic documents - Remedies (incl. complaints, investigation, reports and particular remedies) - General - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - The Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled that the City of Edmonton and EPS contravened ss. 33 and 34 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ordered the City to destroy BWI's database - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Commissioner's orders - The Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to order the City to destroy BWI's database - First, BWI was not an employee of the City - Therefore, the City was not in possession and control of the database and the City had no master/servant power over BWI - Second, the Commissioner only had the power to order the destruction of personal information collected in contravention of the statutes which it administered - The destruction of BWI's database would involve the destruction of much material that was collected outside of Edmonton and much material that was collected without infringing the statute because, for example, it was volunteered - Moreover, the Commissioner breached the principles of natural justice by devising a remedy of its own without consultation with the parties - See paragraphs 104 to 106.

Trade Regulation - Topic 9429

Protection of personal information and electronic documents - Remedies (incl. complaints, investigation, reports and particular remedies) - Judicial review and appeals - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1335 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 9441

Protection of personal information and electronic documents - Protection, collection or disclosure of personal information - General - The City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw required pawnshops to collect from pawnors certain personal information together with a description of the goods pawned and allowed that information to be provided to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) - Edmonton's City Manager instructed pawnshops and second hand stores to record the information required by the bylaw on an electronic database - Pursuant to a contract with the City, Business Watch International Inc. (BWI) managed the database containing the information collected by the pawnshops and provided that information exclusively to the EPS - After he sold a DVD player to Cash Converters (a pawnshop), Buryniuk complained to the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the City's Business Licence Bylaw - On an application for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Commissioner erred in determining that Cash Converters did not have the authority to disclose Buryniuk's personal information to the EPS by electronically uploading the information to BWI - The Personal Information Protection Act authorized private organizations, such as pawnshops and second hand stores, to transfer information which they had collected to a public body pursuant to legislation - Sections 20(b) and (c) clearly authorized the transfer of information by pawnshops to the EPS pursuant to a standing request from the EPS for that information - The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act authorized a public body such as the EPS to collect personal information for the purposes of law enforcement - The Commissioner was both wrong and unreasonable in concluding that the collection of this information did not serve a law enforcement purpose - See paragraphs 86 to 94.

Cases Noticed:

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 8].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 8].

Qualicare Health Service Corp. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) (2006), 407 A.R. 63; 2006 ABQB 515, refd to. [para. 8].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Shineton et al. (2008), 444 A.R. 131; 2007 ABQB 773, refd to. [para. 8].

Stubicar v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2007), 424 A.R. 84; 2007 ABQB 480, refd to. [para. 8].

IMS Health Canada Ltd. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner et al. (2008), 442 A.R. 268; 2008 ABQB 213, refd to. [para. 8].

Cash Converters Canada Inc. et al. v. Oshawa (City) et al. (2007), 226 O.A.C. 104; 2007 ONCA 502, refd to. [para. 8].

Royal City Jewellers & Loans Ltd. v. New Westminster (City) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 134; 405 W.A.C. 134; 2007 BCCA 398, refd to. [para. 8].

Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) (2007), 434 A.R. 311; 2007 ABQB 499, refd to. [para. 9].

University of Alberta v. Pylypiuk et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 300; 2002 ABQB 22, refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta et al. v. Krushell et al. (2003), 340 A.R. 227; 2003 ABQB 252, refd to. [para. 9].

Shields v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) (2004), 364 A.R. 55; 2004 ABQB 353, refd to. [para. 9].

Lust v. Foundations for the Future Charter Academy (2007), 409 A.R. 90; 402 W.A.C. 90; 2007 ABCA 165, refd to. [para. 9].

Aquasource Ltd. v. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al. (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 95; 181 W.A.C. 95; 58 B.C.L.R.(3d) 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney (2008), 322 F.T.R. 181; 2008 FC 96, refd to. [para. 9].

Vialoux v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association (Man.) (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 310; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Neufeld et al. v. Child and Family Extended Social Services of Northeast Winnipeg et al. (1991), 77 Man.R.(2d) 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Cameron v. Law Society of British Columbia (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 35; 7 W.A.C. 35; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 484 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2002] N.S.J. No. 65 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Bernauer v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1994] S.J. No. 154 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Rahman v. Alberta College and Association of Respiratory Therapy, [2001] A.J. No. 343; 2001 ABQB 222, refd to. [para. 9].

Carlin v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses' Association of Alberta (1996), 186 A.R. 186 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Woolridge v. MacKinnon and Barss (1999), 178 N.S.R.(2d) 367; 549 A.P.R. 367 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Harris v. Law Society of Alberta, [1936] S.C.R. 88, refd to. [para. 9].

LeClair v. Manitoba (Residential Care, Director), [1999] M.J. No. 38 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta Giftwares Ltd. v. Calgary (City), [1979] A.J. No. 5551 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1997) 138 F.T.R. 275; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 344 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 1995 CanLII 148, refd to. [para. 9].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 9].

Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Alberta et al. (2001), 285 A.R. 307; 2001 ABQB 286, refd to. [para. 9].

Newell (County) v. Standard Gravel and Resurfacing Canada, [1954] A.J. No. 58, refd to. [para. 9].

Royal City Jewellers & Loans Ltd. v. New Westminster (City) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 134; 405 W.A.C. 134; 2007 BCCA 398 reving. [2006] B.C.T.C. 203; 2006 BCSC 203, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Letourneau (P.N.) (2008), 447 A.R. 218; 2008 ABPC 192, refd to. [para. 9].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 181; 255 F.T.R. 56; 2004 FC 431, refd to. [para. 10].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 10].

Adler Firestopping Ltd. et al. v. Rea et al. (2008), 441 A.R. 18; 2008 ABQB 95, refd to. [para. 10].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 11].

Sheckter v. Alberta Planning Board (1979), 14 A.R. 492 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437, refd to. [para. 11].

Children's Lawyer for Ontario v. Goodis et al. (2005), 196 O.A.C. 350; 253 D.L.R.(4th) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP et al. (2008), 432 A.R. 188; 424 W.A.C. 188; 2008 ABCA 160, refd to. [para. 11].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. United Nurses of Alberta, Local 168 et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 470; 2008 ABQB 421, refd to. [para. 11].

Nametco Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2002] N.R. Uned. 71; 2002 FCA 149, refd to. [para. 11].

Legal Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Surface Rights Board (Alta.) (2001), 303 A.R. 8; 273 W.A.C. 8; 2001 ABCA 160, refd to. [para. 11].

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1995 CarswellNat 1119 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communication Workers of Canada and Canada Labour Relations Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; 28 N.R. 107; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission v. McGrath (2002), 220 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 282; 657 A.P.R. 282; 2002 NLCA 74, refd to. [para. 11].

Ha v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 CarswellNat 2139 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sochowski v. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. C56; 2008 BCSC 1390, refd to. [para. 11].

Finning Canada, [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 32, refd to. [para. 11].

Cyanamid Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1992), 148 N.R. 147; 1992 CarswellNat 216 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Society Promoting Environmental Conservation v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 305 N.R. 203; 228 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 2003 FCA 239, refd to. [para. 11].

Manyfingers v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2006), 384 A.R. 181; 367 W.A.C. 181; 2006 ABCA 162, refd to. [para. 11].

Budgen v. St. John's (City) et al. (2008), 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 178; 863 A.P.R. 178; 2008 NLTD 180, refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Edmonton (City) Bylaws, Business License Bylaw, Bylaw No. 13138, sect. 33 [para. 14]; sect. 40 [para. 15]; sect. 40.2 [para. 14]; sect. 40.8 [para. 15].

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25, sect. 1(h), sect. 33 [para. 92]; sect. 69(6) [para. 33].

Personal Information Protection Act, S.A. 2003, c. P-6.5, sect. 14(b) [para. 83]; sect. 20(b), sect. 20(c) [para. 91]; sect. 50(5) [para. 33].

Counsel:

Cameron Ashmore and Kismet Fong (City of Edmonton Law Branch), for the City of Edmonton;

Katrina M. Haymond, and Anne L.G. Côté (Field LLP), for the Edmonton Police Service;

Thomas W. Wakeling, Q.C., and Anna Loparco (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for Business Watch International Inc.;

R.B. Drewry, Q.C., and Kate Hurlburt (Emery Jamieson LLP), for the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

This application was heard on October 21 to 23, 2008, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on January 8, 2009.