Gordon v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2008 FC 258

• Judge: Gibson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 04, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2008 FC 258;(2008), 324 F.T.R. 94 (FC)

Gordon v. Can. (2008), 324 F.T.R. 94 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.004

Mike Gordon (applicant) v. The Minister of Health (respondent) and Privacy Commissioner of Canada (intervenor)

(T-347-06; 2008 FC 258)

Indexed As: Gordon v. Canada (Minister of Health)

Federal Court

Gibson, J.

February 27, 2008.

Summary:

The Minister of Health refused to disclose the field of "province" in the Canadian Adverse Drug Reactions Information System database. The Minister justified the non-disclosure under s. 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The applicant applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Crown - Topic 7170

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Disclosure - Personal information - [See Crown - Topic 7206 ].

Crown - Topic 7206

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Personal information - The Minister of Health refused to disclose the field of "province" in the Canadian Adverse Drug Reactions Information System (CARDIS) - The Minister justified the non-disclosure under s. 19(1) of the Access to Information Act - The Minister also declined to exercise his discretion to disclose the information under s. 19(2) of the Act - The applicant applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The evidence of the Minister's three affiants represented substantial evidence that disclosure of the field of "province" would substantially increase the possibility that information about an identifiable individual that was recorded in any form would fall into the hands of persons seeking to use the totality of information disclosed from the CARDIS database, in conjunction with other publicly available information, to identify "particular" individuals - The Minister was required to refuse to disclose the content of the field of "province" pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act - The content of that field constituted "personal information" as defined in s. 3 of the Privacy Act - See paragraphs 31 to 52.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - The Minister of Health refused to disclose the field of "province" in the Canadian Adverse Drug Reactions Information System (CARDIS) - The Minister justified the non-disclosure under s. 19(1) of the Access to Information Act - The Minister also declined to exercise his discretion to disclose the information under s. 19(2) of the Act - The applicant applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision - The Federal Court stated that "the appropriate standard of review on this application is correctness subject to the two foregoing qualifications as urged on behalf of the respondent; that is to say, that the fact that the [Information Commissioner of Canada] was involved in this matter and supported the decision of the respondent to maintain the exemption of the field of 'province' is a factor that should be considered by this court as a qualification of the correctness standard of review in respect of the claimed exemption under subsection 19(1) of the Act, and that the decision by the respondent not to exercise his discretion under subsection 19(2) to nonetheless release the substance of the field of 'province' should only be reviewed to determine whether the discretion was exercised in good faith and for a reason rationally connected to the purpose for which the discretion was granted" - See paragraph 24.

Cases Noticed:

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 66; 301 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 6].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.) (2004), 255 F.T.R. 56; 32 C.P.R.(4th) 464; 2004 FC 431, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 7].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 8].

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. 28, footnote 10].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, [2007] 1 F.C.R. 203; 348 N.R. 263; 2006 FCA 157, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 19 [para. 9].

Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, sect. 3, sect. 8 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Julie Thibault, for the applicant;

John Tyhurst and Kris Klein, for the respondent;

Steven Welchner and Nathalie Daigle, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Legal Services, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Heenan Blaikie LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Welchner Law Office, Professional Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on February 4, 2008, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Gibson, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on February 27, 2008.