Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.), (2004) 255 F.T.R. 56 (FC)

Document

Cited authorities 62

Cited in 20

Precedent Map

Judge	Dawson, J.
Court	Federal Court (Canada)
Case Date	March 25, 2004
Jurisdiction	Canada (Federal)
Citations	(2004), 255 F.T.R. 56 (FC);2004 FC 431

Can. (A.G.) v. Information Commr. (2004), 255 F.T.R. 56 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.011

The Attorney General of Canada and Bruce Hartley (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-582-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Jean Pelletier (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-606-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Bruce Hartley (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1640-00)

The Attorney General of Canada, Meribeth Morris, Randy Mylyk and Emechete Onuoha (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada and David Pugliese (respondents)

(T-1641-00)

The Attorney General of Canada and Jean Pelletier (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-792-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Randy Mylyk (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-877-01)

The Attorney General of Canada, and The Honourable Art C. Eggleton (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-878-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Emechete Onuoha (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-883-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Meribeth Morris (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-892-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Sue Ronald (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1047-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Mel Cappe (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1254-01)

The Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Art C. Eggleton, George Young and Judith Mooney (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1909-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Bruce Hartley (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-684-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Jean Pelletier (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-763-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Randy Mylyk (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-880-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Meribeth Morris (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-895-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Emechete Onuoha (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-896-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Sue Ronald (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1049-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Mel Cappe (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1255-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and The Honourable Art C. Eggleton (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1448-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and The Honourable Art C. Eggleton (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1910-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and The Honourable Art C. Eggleton (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-2070-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Jean Pelletier (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-801-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and The Honourable Art C. Eggleton (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-891-01)

The Attorney General of Canada and Mel Cappe (applicants) v. The Information Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1083-01)

(2004 FC 431)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.)

Federal Court

Dawson, J.

March 25, 2004.

Summary:

Requests were made to the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport for disclosure of records pursuant to the Access to Information Act. Four of the five requesters made complaints to the Information Commissioner in respect of the responses received to their requests. The Commissioner investigated the complaints and also proceeded with a self-initiated complaint in relation to one of the requests. Pursuant to those investigations, the Commissioner issued subpoenas duces tecum to witnesses, copied records which were produced pursuant to such subpoenas, examined under oath witnesses who had been subpoenaed, and made confidentiality orders at the outset of some of those examinations. The applicants brought 25 applications for judicial review, which were grouped into five groups. Group A sought a declaration that certain records under the control of the Prime Minister's Office or the office of the Minister of National Defence were not under the control of, respectively, the Privy Council Office or the Department of National Defence, and so were not under the control of a government institution. Group B sought a declaration that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make confidentiality orders. Consequential relief quashing the confidentiality orders was also sought. Group C sought a declaration that the Commissioner could not photocopy materials delivered to him pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. Consequential relief was sought requiring the return of copies made and the prohibition of further copying. Group D sought a declaration that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to require two named parties to answer certain questions on examination under oath (the "Propriety of Questions Application"). Group E sought a declaration that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to require the production of certain documents in respect of which a claim for solicitor-client privilege had been made. The Commissioner's investigations of most of the complaints were still ongoing.

The Federal Court held that it was premature to adjudicate upon the request for a declaration that records under the control of the Prime Minister's Office or the office of a minister were not under the control of a government institution and were not subject to the Act. That issue should only be determined by the court after the Commissioner has been allowed to complete his investigation and report. With respect to the "Propriety of Questions Applications", the court held that the issue of the propriety of the disputed questions was moot and that this was not a proper case for the court to exercise its discretion to decide a moot issue. With respect to the other applications, the court held that: the Act by implication authorized the Commissioner to make copies of documents provided to him pursuant to his power to subpoena documents; the Act authorized the Commissioner's delegate to require production of a specific legal memorandum, notwithstanding a claim that it was the subject of solicitor-client privilege and it was not necessary for the Commissioner's delegate to conclude that the memorandum was "absolutely required" for the investigation before requiring its production; the Act authorized the Commissioner's delegate to impose confidentiality orders upon witnesses who appeared before him to give evidence, but the confidentiality orders in question breached the right of the individual applicants to freedom of expression and the orders were over-broad and were not a reasonable limit prescribed by law so as to be valid pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter. In the result, the court ordered that the confidentiality orders be set aside, but on the condition that the orders would remain in effect for 30 days. That period would protect the ongoing status of the Commissioner's investigation by affording the Commissioner the opportunity to consider the need for confidentiality orders and, if required, to issue orders which were not over-broad and which were justified on the evidence before the Commissioner.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.8

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Confidential information or confidentiality order - The Information Commissioner investigated complaints which arose from requests for disclosure of information made pursuant to the Access to Information Act - During the investigations, the Commissioner's delegate examined witnesses who had been subpoenaed and made confidentiality orders at the outset of some of those examinations - The confidentiality orders required that the witnesses not reveal any information disclosed during their testimony - The witnesses could disclose such information to their lawyers once the lawyers had executed an undertaking not to reveal the information - The confidentiality orders were to apply until the Commissioner released the witness from the order - The Federal Court held that the Act authorized the Commissioner's delegate to impose confidentiality orders on witnesses (s. 34), but the confidentiality orders in question breached the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter and the orders were over-broad and were not a reasonable limit prescribed by law so as to be valid pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 172 to 245.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1860.8 ].

Courts - Topic 2283

Jurisdiction - Bars - Premature matters - Requests were made to the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport for disclosure of records pursuant to the Access to Information Act - The requesters made complaints to the Information Commissioner in respect of the responses received - Applications (Court files T-1640-00, T-1641-00 and T-606-01) were brought for a declaration that certain records under the control of the Prime Minister's Office or the office of the Minister of National Defence were not under the control of, respectively, the Privy Council Office or the Department of National Defence, and so were not under the control of a government institution (and therefore not subject to the Act) - With respect to T-1640-00 and T-1641-00, the Commissioner's investigations into the underlying complaints were still ongoing - The Federal Court dismissed the applications in T-1640-00 and T-1641-00 on the ground that they were premature and unripe - The court concluded that while it had jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, it should be cautious because to do so would deprive the applicants, the complainants and the court of the benefit of the Commissioner's investigation and report - The issue of control could be seen as a threshold question of jurisdiction and generally such questions were best initially resolved by the affected tribunal - Following the statutory scheme would afford an adequate remedy to the applicants - The applicants would not suffer any prejudice if the applications were dismissed as premature - See paragraphs 70 to 124.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision of the Information Commissioner's delegate which required production of a memorandum that was alleged to be subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege - The Federal Court stated that while the issue of the Commissioner's ability to compel production of the memorandum might be seen to be moot since the document has already been provided to the Commissioner, an order quashing such production would have some practical value in that the memorandum would be returned by the Commissioner and presumably could not be used by the Commissioner in evidence in any subsequent proceeding - Moreover, as the dispute centred around the proper interpretation of the Access to Information Act as it touched upon the ability of the Commissioner to require production of documents in respect of which a claim for solicitor-client privilege was asserted, a decision as to the scope of the Commissioner's authority to compel production would have some precedential value - The court was therefore satisfied that it should exercise its discretion to determine the question raised by the application as to whether the Commissioner could properly require production of the memorandum - See paragraphs 340 to 341.

Crown - Topic 7146

Examination of public documents - Office of commissioner - Investigative powers - The Federal Court held that the Information Commissioner had jurisdiction to photocopy documents delivered pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to s. 36(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act - The court held that the power to photocopy documents was required as a matter of practical necessity for the accomplishment of the Commissioner's responsibilities under the Act and that the Act by implication authorized the Commissioner to make copies of documents produced to him pursuant to his subpoena power - See paragraphs 264 to 290.

Crown - Topic 7146

Examination of public documents - Office of commissioner - Investigative powers - The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision of the Information Commissioner's delegate which required the production of a memorandum which was alleged to be subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege - The applicants acknowledged that subsection 36(2) of the Access to Information Act provided to the Commissioner a prima facie right of access to documents that were protected by solicitor-client privilege - However, the applicants argued that in Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General) the Supreme Court of Canada stated that such a statutory authority must be interpreted restrictively, so as to allow access to documents protected by solicitor-client privilege only where absolutely necessary to the conduct of the investigation - The Federal Court held that s. 36(2) should not be interpreted in that restrictive fashion - The Commissioner's delegate was correct in his decision that he could compel production of the memorandum and that it was not necessary for him to consider whether the document was absolutely required for his investigation - See paragraphs 351 to 364.

Crown - Topic 7146

Examination of public documents - Office of commissioner - Investigative powers - Section 36(5) of the Access to Information Act provided that "any document or thing produced pursuant to this section by any person or government institution shall be returned by the Information Commissioner within ten days after a request is made to the Commissioner by that person or government institution, but nothing in this subsection precludes the Commissioner from again requiring its production in accordance with this section" - The Federal Court held that s. 36(5) was not intended to apply to copies made by the Commissioner - Rather, s. 36(5) was directed to the return of the actual version of the document or thing that was produced to the Commissioner pursuant to s. 36 - See paragraph 289.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - The Information Commissioner investigated complaints which arose from requests for disclosure of information which had been made pursuant to the Access to Information Act - During the investigations, the Commissioner's delegate examined witnesses who had been subpoenaed and made confidentiality orders at the outset of some of those examinations - The Federal Court held that the standard of review applicable to the question of whether the Information Commissioner had the authority to issue a confidentiality order was a standard of correctness - See paragraphs 164 to 171.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - The Information Commissioner investigated complaints which arose from requests for disclosure of information which had been made pursuant to the Access to Information Act - Pursuant to those investigations, the Commissioner issued subpoenas duces tecum to witnesses and copied records which were produced pursuant to such subpoenas - An application was brought for a declaration that the Information Commissioner could not photocopy materials delivered to him pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum - The Federal Court held that the standard of review applicable to the Commissioner's decision that the Act allowed him to copy records produced pursuant to a subpoena was correctness - See paragraph 260.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision of the Information Commissioner's delegate which required production of a memorandum which was alleged to be subject to solicitor-client privilege - The Federal Court held that the standard of review to be applied to the decision to compel production of the memorandum was correctness - See paragraphs 345 to 350.

Evidence - Topic 4237

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Documents - General - [See second Crown - Topic 7146 ].

Cases Noticed:

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268, refd to. [para. 17].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 303 N.R. 63; 2003 FCA 180, refd to. [para. 18].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) et al., [1995] 2 F.C. 110; 179 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Privacy Commission (Can.) v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 609; 118 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Languages (Can.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282, refd to. [para. 20].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.) (2001), 268 N.R. 328; 2001 FCA 25, refd to. [para. 44].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 66].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Walmsley v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al. (1997), 101 O.A.C. 140; 34 O.R.(3d) 611 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 509; 7 C.P.R.(4th) 301 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al. (1999), 3 B.C.T.C. 161 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) - see Information Commissaire à l'information du Canada v. Canada (Ministre de la Défense nationale).

Information Commissaire à l'information du Canada v. Canada (Ministre de la Défense nationale) (1999), 240 N.R. 244 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Davidson v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1989] 2 F.C. 341; 98 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Canadian Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1999] 4 F.C. 245; 168 F.T.R. 49 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 84].

3430901 Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Industry) (2001), 282 N.R. 284; 14 C.P.R.(4th) 449 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (President), [1989] 1 F.C. 265; 86 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) (1993), 68 F.T.R. 235 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 94].

Singh (Subhaschan), Re, [1989] 1 F.C. 430; 86 N.R. 69 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

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. 143].

Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al.

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 134; 113 F.T.R. 13 (T.D.), affd. [2000] 3 F.C. 589; 256 N.R. 278 (F.C.A.), revd. in part [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 144].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) and Canada (Attorney General) (1983), 49 A.R. 371; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 240 (Q.B.), affd. (1984), 13 D.L.R.(4th) 479 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. C.B. - see C.B. v. Kimelman, Radio Station CJOB, Radio Station CHMM and Manitoba (Attorney General).

C.B. v. Kimelman, Radio Station CJOB, Radio Station CHMM and Manitoba (Attorney General), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 480; 38 N.R. 451; 12 Man.R.(2d) 361, refd to. [para. 147].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 154].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 155].

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. 164].

Echo Bay Mines Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2003), 308 N.R. 135; 2003 FCA 270, refd to. [para. 165].

Angus v. Hart and Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; 87 N.R. 200; 30 O.A.C. 210, refd to. [para. 173].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Newfield Seeds Ltd. (1989), 80 Sask.R. 134; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 644 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 173].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 173].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 186].

Smolensky v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2003] B.C.T.C. 1189 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, appld. [para. 191].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 191].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 192].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522; 287 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 221].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2003] 1 F.C. 219; 291 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 238].

Interprovincial Pipe Line Ltd. v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 F.C. 601; 17 N.R. 56 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 274].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, consd. [para. 275].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345, consd. [para. 276].

Babcock et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 289 N.R. 341; 168 B.C.A.C. 50; 275 W.A.C. 50; 214 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 310].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 310].

Zundel v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Zündel v. Citron et al.

Zündel v. Citron et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 255; 256 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 314].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al. (2001), 270 N.R. 399 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 314].

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; 164 O.A.C. 280; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 341].

Descoteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 352].

Ethyl - see Canada (Minister of the Environment) v. Information Commissioner (Can.).

Canada (Minister of the Environment) v. Information Commissioner (Can.) (2000), 256 N.R. 162; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 127 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 358].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 362].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 34 [para. 174]; sect. 36(1) [para. 264]; sect. 36(2) [para. 351]; sect. 36(5) [para. 266].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, D., and Evans, J., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (Looseleaf Ed.), pp. 1-68 to 1-71 [para. 71].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 17].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1955), vol. 36, para. 657, p. 436 [para. 274].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 187 [para. 284]; 193 [para. 283].

Counsel:

"Group A"

David Scott, Peter Doody, Lawrence Elliot and Mandy Moore, for the applicants;

Raynold Langlois, Daniel Brunet, Patricia Boyd and Rima Kayssi, for the respondent, Information Commissioner;

Scott Little, for the respondent, David Pugliese (T-1641-00).

"Group B"

Peter Doody, Lawrence Elliot and Mandy Moore, for the applicants;

Marlys Edwardh, Daniel Brunet and Patricia Boyd, for the respondent, Information Commissioner.

"Group C"

Peter Doody, Lawrence Elliot and Mandy Moore, for the applicants;

Raynold Langlois, Daniel Brunet, Patricia Boyd and Rima Kayssi, for the respondent, Information Commissioner.

"Group D"

Peter Doody, Lawrence Elliot and Mandy Moore, for the applicants;

Raynold Langlois, Daniel Brunet, Patricia Boyd and Rima Kayssi, for the respondent, Information Commissioner.

"Group E"

Peter Doody, Lawrence Elliot and Mandy Moore, for the applicants;

Raynold Langlois, Daniel Brunet, Patricia Boyd and Rima Kayssi, for the respondent, Information Commissioner.

Solicitors of Record:

"Group A"