Gauthier et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2004) 252 F.T.R. 81 (FC)

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 252 F.T.R. 81 (FC);2004 FC 655

Gauthier v. Can. (2004), 252 F.T.R. 81 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.039

Robert Gilles Gauthier and National Capital News (applicants) v. The Minister of Justice (respondent) and The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (intervener)

(T-653-02; 2004 FC 655)

Indexed As: Gauthier et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

May 4, 2004.

Summary:

Gauthier applied for judicial review of a decision of the Access to Information and Privacy Director of the Department of Justice denying disclosure of certain documents containing personal information pertaining to Gauthier and his company, the National Capital News.

The Federal Court allowed the application in part.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - Gauthier founded the National Capital News in 1982 and had since sought active membership in the Parliamentary Press Gallery - He was denied membership and initiated numerous legal challenges to the denial, including a complaint to the United Nations' Human Rights Committee for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which concluded that the denial of membership violated Gauthier's right to freedom of expression - Gauthier applied to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for access to information pertaining to the legal proceedings - The Access to Information and Privacy Director of the DOJ denied disclosure on the grounds that the documents were exempt from disclosure pursuant to s. 27 of the Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege) - Gauthier argued that he was able to glean from some of the disclosed information that the DOJ had trivialised the UN Human Rights Committee's view and were attempting to avoid compliance with Canada's international obligations - Gauthier argued that solicitor-client privilege did not apply as the advice was directed towards an unlawful purpose or end - The Federal Court rejected the argument - See paragraphs 39 to 45.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - Gauthier applied for judicial review of a decision of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Director of the Department of Justice (DOJ) denying disclosure of certain documents containing personal information pertaining to Gauthier and his company, the National Capital News - The ATIP Director denied disclosure on the grounds that the documents were exempt pursuant to s. 27 of the Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege) - Gauthier argued that solicitor-client privilge could not apply in the absence of an owner to claim it - Gauthier argued that the DOJ was asserting privilege without a client having claimed it and was not giving a client an opportunity to determine if the privilege should be waived - The Federal Court rejected the argument - The court held that a client clearly existed, namely the Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Justice - Further, the lack of reference to waiver had to be regarded as the client failing to assert such waiver - See paragraphs 46 to 53.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - Gauthier applied for judicial review of a decision of the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Director of the Department of Justice (DOJ) denying disclosure of certain documents containing personal information pertaining to Gauthier and his company, the National Capital News - The Federal Court considered the pragmatic and functional approach and held that the applicable standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 24 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick Broadcasting Corp. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 2].

Gauthier v. Canada (Speaker of the House of Commons), [2004] N.R. Uned. 12 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

Gauthier v. Canadian Press Gallery, [1996] O.J No. 10 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 66; 301 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 19].

Ternette v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1992] 2 F.C. 75; 49 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Immigration and Refugee Board (Can.) (1997), 140 F.T.R. 140 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

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. 21].

Reyes v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1984), 9 Admin. L.R. 296 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

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. 25].

Gold v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1992), 55 F.T.R. 102 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Kelly v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1992), 53 F.T.R. 147 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

Cemerlic v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2003), 228 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 589; 256 N.R. 278 (F.C.A.), revd. in part (2002), 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 29].

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (President), [1989] 1 F.C. 265; 86 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

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. 30].

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, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to [para. 41].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 41].

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. 41].

General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Commercial Union Assurance Co. et al. v. M.T. Fishing Co. et al. (1999), 162 F.T.R. 74 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 244 N.R. 397 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Jewish Congress v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1996] 1 F.C. 268; 102 F.T.R. 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

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. 48].

Stevens v. Prime Minister (Can.), [1998] 4 F.C. 89; 228 N.R. 142 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, sect. 27 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Terrance J. Green, for the applicant;

Alexander Gay, for the respondent;

Steven Welchner, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Terrance J. Green, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on March 31, 2004, at Ottawa, Ontario, by Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on May 4, 2004.