Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2006) 347 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 21, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 347 N.R. 1 (SCC);2006 SCC 13;42 Admin LR (4th) 1;[2006] ACS no 13;[2006] 1 SCR 441;347 NR 1;266 DLR (4th) 675;[2006] SCJ No 13 (QL);48 CPR (4th) 161

Heinz Co. v. Can. (A.G.) (2006), 347 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. AP.031

Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd. (respondent) and Information Commissioner of Canada (intervener)

(30417; 2006 SCC 13; 2006 CSC 13)

Indexed As: Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ.

April 21, 2006.

Summary:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) notified Heinz Co. (i.e., a third party) that it had received a request for in­for­mation under the Ac­cess to Information Act, and that pursuant to that request it intended to release certain docu­ments which contained information concerning Heinz Co. Heinz expressed its concerns but the CFIA notified Heinz that it intended to release the records in any event, subject to editing. Heinz commenced a review application un­der s. 44 of the Act, arguing that certain records should not be disclosed because they fell under two exemp­tions established by the Act, i.e., s. 20(1), which prohibited the dis­closure of confidential business informa­tion, and s. 19(1), which pro­hibited the dis­­closure of personal information relat­ing to in­dividu­als.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 230 F.T.R. 272, held that the information provided by Heinz to the CFIA was protected from disclosure un­der ss. 19 and 20(1) of the Act, and that the confidential infor­mation would have to be severed from the docu­ments by CFIA be­fore they were released. The ap­plications judge held that the third party could, on a s. 44 application, invoke exemptions other than those set out in s. 20(1) respecting third party business or scientific interests. In par­tic­u­lar, the applications judge held that Heinz on the s. 44 application was entitled to seek to prevent disclosure of documents fall­ing within the ambit of personal informa­tion un­der s. 19 of the Act. The Attorney General ap­pealed, arguing that the ap­plica­tions judge erred in concluding that Heinz, a third party, could, on a s. 44 appli­cation, invoke exemp­tions other than those set out in s. 20(1) of the Act respecting third party business or sci­­entific interests.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 320 N.R. 300, dismissed the appeal. The Attorney General appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Lebel, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 7161

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Legislation - The Su­preme Court of Canada discussed the his­tory and purpose of the Access to Infor­ma­tion Act (Can.) and Privacy Act (Can.) - In particular, the court interpreted s. 44 of the Access to Information Act which ac­corded third parties who had re­ceived no­tice re­garding the disclosure of con­fiden­tial business information a special right of re­view - The court rejected a narrow inter­pre­­ta­tion of s. 44, holding that on a s. 44 applica­tion, the reviewing court had juris­diction to pro­tect personal information as well as confi­dential business information - See paragraphs 15 to 62.

Crown - Topic 7171

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Legislation - Disclos­ure - Con­fi­den­tial information supplied by third party - A federal agency planned to release certain docu­ments under the Access to Information Act con­taining information respecting a third party, Heinz - Heinz com­­menced a s. 44 review - The applica­tions judge held that the informa­tion pro­vided by Heinz to the agency was pro­tect­ed from disclosure under s. 19 (per­sonal in­­formation) and s. 20(1) (confiden­tial busi­ness information) - The Attorney Gen­eral appealed, arguing that the applica­tions judge erred in allowing the third party to invoke exemptions other than those set out in s. 20(1) - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Attorney Gen­eral appealed again - The Su­preme Court of Can­ada dismissed the appeal - The court held that on a third party applica­tion under s. 44 a reviewing court could con­sider and apply the privacy exemp­tion set out in s. 19(1) as well as the business information exemption in s. 20(1) - See para­­graphs 1 to 64.

Crown - Topic 7241

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Judicial review and appeals - General - [See Crown - Topic 7171 ].

Cases Noticed:

Information Commis­sioner (Can.) v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Com­mis­sion­er), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 66; 301 N.R. 41; 2003 SCC 8, refd to. [paras. 2, 70].

Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. v. Canada (Min­­ister of Supply and Services) (1988), 24 F.T.R. 32 (T.D.), affd. (1990), 107 N.R. 89 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Siemens Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Ser­vices) et al. (2001), 213 F.T.R. 125; 2001 FCT 1202, affd. (2002), 299 N.R. 256; 21 C.P.R.(4th) 575; 2002 FCA 414, refd to. [para. 6].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 10, 67].

SNC Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister for International Co-operation) et al., [2003] 4 F.C. 900; 234 F.T.R. 294; 2003 FCT 681, refd to. [para. 13].

Friesen v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103; 186 N.R. 243; 95 D.T.C. 5551, refd to. [para. 13].

Markevich v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94; 300 N.R. 321; 2003 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 13].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 22, 68].

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Lan­guages (Can.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282; 2002 SCC 53, refd to. [paras. 28, 81].

Davidson v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1989] 2 F.C. 341; 98 N.R. 126; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 342 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 476; 236 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Morneault v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 F.C. 30; 256 N.R. 85 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 1; 2003 FC 1037, refd to. [para. 51].

Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1989), 27 F.T.R. 194 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls Facil­ity Management Services v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Govern­ment Services) (2003), 230 F.T.R. 315; 2003 FCT 254, refd to. [para. 51].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364; [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 62].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 26 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 208 D.L.R.(4th) 107; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 93].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2006), 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 344 N.R. 293; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 111].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Min­ister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 115].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (At­torney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 117].

Aliments Prince Foods Inc. v. Canada (Min­istre de l'Agriculture et Agroali­men­taire) (2001), 272 N.R. 184 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 19, sect. 20(1) [para. 17]; sect. 28 [para. 42]; sect. 44 [para. 19]; sect. 51 [para. 43].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1 [para. 109].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bennett, Colin J., The Privacy Commis­sioner of Canada: Multiple Roles, Di­verse Expec­tations and Structural Dilem­mas (2003), 46 Can. Pub. Admin. 218, p. 237 [para. 87].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. VI, 1st Sess., 32nd Parlia­ment (January 29, 1981), pp. 6689 [para. 22]; 6691 [paras. 22, 27].

Canada, Justice Canada, Report of the Special Advisor to the Minister of Jus­tice, The Offices of the Informa­tion and Priv­acy Commissioners: The Merger and Related Issues (LaForest Report) (November 15, 2005), pp. 15 [para. 84]; 17, 18 [paras. 34, 87].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 67].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

La Forest Report - see Canada, Justice Can­ada, Report of the Special Advisor to the Minister of Justice entitled The Of­fices of the Inform­ation and Privacy Com­missioners: The Merger and Related Issues.

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 20, 21 [para. 93].

Counsel:

Christopher Rupar, for the appellant;

Nicholas McHaffie and Craig Collins-Wil­liams, for the respondent;

Raynold Langlois, Q.C., and Daniel Bru­net, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ot­tawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Stikeman, Elliott, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on November 7, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on April 21, 2006, when the following opinions were filed:

Deschamps, J. (Binnie, Fish, Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 64;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., and LeBel, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 65 to 124.