Davidson v. Canada (Solicitor General), (1989) 98 N.R. 126 (FCA)

• Judge: Mahoney, Stone and MacGuigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 98 N.R. 126 (FCA)

Davidson v. Can. (1989), 98 N.R. 126 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Solicitor General of Canada (appellant/respondent) v. Neil Anderson Davidson (respondent/applicant)

(A-167-87)

Indexed As: Davidson v. Canada (Solicitor General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Mahoney, Stone and MacGuigan, JJ.A.

February 6, 1989.

Summary:

Davidson, a city mayor, was investigated by the R.C.M.P. with respect to illegal activities, but no charges were laid. Davidson requested access to information about him held by the R.C.M.P. The Commissioner refused disclosure under s. 22(2) of the Privacy Act on the ground that there was an agreement between the R.C.M.P. and the Province of British Columbia not to disclose any personal information acquired by the R.C.M.P. while performing police services for the Province. Davidson applied for review of the decision and before the hearing learned that no such agreement existed. At the review hearing the Commissioner sought to rely on other grounds for denying the request.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 9 F.T.R. 295, ruled that the Commissioner was limited to the ground for refusal stated in his original refusal, which was not a valid ground. The Solicitor General appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 909

Discrimination - Discriminatory laws - Practice of denying costs to successful self-represented litigant - Self-represented lawyers - The Federal Court of Appeal reconsidered and affirmed its practice of denying costs to a self-represented lawyer, stating that a self-represented lawyer should be treated as any other self-represented litigant and that such a practice was not discriminatory contrary to s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraphs 18 to 25.

Crown - Topic 7112

Examination of public documents - General - Grounds for denial of disclosure - The Federal Court of Appeal held that under the Privacy Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Schedule II, an institutional head (such as the R.C. M.P. Commissioner) is bound by the grounds of denial of disclosure stated in rejecting a request for information and, therefore, may not raise additional or other grounds on an application for review - Hence, where the single ground for denial stated was invalid, the R.C.M.P. Commissioner could not raise another ground on the review application - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Crown - Topic 7162

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Purpose of - Privacy Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Schedule II - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the general purpose of the Privacy Act was to protect privacy and provide a right of access to individuals to personal information about themselves and that exemptions from disclosure should be strictly interpreted as an exception to the general purpose of the Act - See paragraph 9.

Crown - Topic 7202

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Interpretation - The Federal Court of Appeal held that an exemption from disclosure under the Privacy Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Schedule II, should be strictly interpreted as an exception to the general purpose of the Act, which is to protect privacy and provide a right of access to individuals to personal information about themselves - See paragraph 9.

Crown - Topic 7218

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Identity of police informants - The Federal Court of Appeal held that under the Privacy Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Schedule II, s. 22(1), the protection of the identity of police informants was mandatory, not discretionary - See paragraphs 15 to 16.

Evidence - Topic 4150

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Identity of police informants - [See Crown - Topic 7218 above].

Practice - Topic 6986

Costs - Entitlement - Bars - Litigant acting on own behalf - [See Civil Rights - Topic 909 above].

Practice - Topic 9428

Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Objection to reasons for decision - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that an objection to the reasons for a decision (as opposed to the decision itself) is not a valid ground of appeal - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

Ternette v. Solicitor General of Canada, [1984] 2 F.C. 486, appld. [para. 3].

Information Commissioner v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1986), 5 F.T.R. 287, refd to. [para. 3].

Bisaillon v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, appld. [para. 15].

Rentokil v. Barrigar & Oyen (1983), 75 C.P.R.(2d) 10, folld. [para. 20].

McBeth v. Governors of Dalhousie (1986), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 173 A.P.R. 224; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 321, not folld. [para. 21].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Limited v. Canada (Attorney General), [1987] 2 F.C. 359; 78 N.R. 30, appld. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act - see Evidence Act.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 21]; sect. 15 [para. 23].

Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-10, sect. 36.1 [para. 12].

Privacy Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Schedule II, sect. 2, sect. 12 [para. 9]; sect. 19(1) [para. 11]; sect. 22(1) [para. 15]; sect. 45 [para. 12].

Counsel:

H. Wruck and J. Courteau, for the appellant/respondent;

Neil A. Davidson, for himself as respondent/applicant.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant/respondent;

Neil A. Davidson, Vernon, B.C., for the respondent/applicant.

This case was heard on January 26, 1989, at Vancouver, B.C, before Mahoney, Stone and MacGuigan, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On February 6, 1989, the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

MacGuigan, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

Mahoney, J.A. - see paragraphs 18 to 25.

Stone, J.A., concurred with both MacGuigan and Mahoney, JJ.A.