Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2012) 415 F.T.R. 167 (FC)

• Judge: Gleason, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 24, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 415 F.T.R. 167 (FC);2012 FC 877

Information Commr. v. Can. (2012), 415 F.T.R. 167 (FC)

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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.028

The Information Commissioner of Canada (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent)

(T-146-11)

The Information Commissioner of Canada (applicant) v. The Minister of Justice of Canada (respondent)

(T-147-11; 2012 FC 877; 2012 CF 877)

Indexed As: Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Federal Court

Gleason, J.

July 12, 2012.

Summary:

Boudreau requested information from the Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P. under the Access to Information Act. Both respondents refused her request on the basis of exemptions to disclosure set out in the Act. Boudreau complained to the Information Commissioner of Canada. The Commissioner applied under s. 42 of the Act for a review of the respondent's decision, and requested that a confidentiality order be lifted.

The Federal Court allowed the application and ordered the respondents to disclose the information to Boudreau. At the parties' request, the court agreed to allow written submissions on the issue of the confidentiality agreement following the court's decision on the merits.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client and litigation privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - Boudreau requested disclosure of a protocol entered into by the Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P. (respondents) - The respondents refused her request on the basis of exemptions set out in ss. 23 and 21(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act - Boudreau complained to the Information Commissioner of Canada - The Commissioner applied for a review of the respondents' decision - The Federal Court allowed the application - Section 23 of the Act exempted information that was subject to solicitor-client privilege - The court held that the protocol was not subject to solicitor-client privilege because it was not a communication involving the seeking or provision of legal advice - The protocol had been negotiated and legal advice was not the subject of negotiation between a solicitor and his client - The protocol was signed by both respondents and a communication providing or seeking legal advice was not typically signed by both the client and lawyer - The fact that the protocol was marked "Confidential and Solicitor-Client Privileged" did not render it subject to solicitor-client privilege - Section 21(1)(a) of the Act exempted information that contained advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution - The court held that the protocol did not represent advice given to the R.C.M.P. and was instead an agreement between the respondents setting out their respective roles and responsibilities - Disclosure of the protocol would not limit the free and frank flow of information essential to the decision-making process in government and would not undermine the ability of the government to discharge its essential functions - The court ordered the respondents to disclose the protocol to Boudreau - See paragraphs 15 to 35.

Crown - Topic 7208.1

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Advice, proposals, analyses or policy options developed for government of public body - [See Crown - Topic 7203 ].

Cases Noticed:

Attaran v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (2011), 420 N.R. 315; 337 D.L.R.(4th) 552; 2011 FCA 182, refd to. [para. 5].

3430901 Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2002] 1 F.C. 421; 282 N.R. 284; 2001 FCA 254, refd to. [para. 5].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2009), 373 F.T.R. 1; 2009 FC 1221, refd to. [para. 5].

Stevens v. Prime Minister (Can.), [1997] 2 F.C. 759; 127 F.T.R. 90 (T.D.), affd. [1998] 4 F.C. 89; 228 N.R. 142 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Elomari v. President of the Canadian Space Agency, [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 896; 2006 FC 863, refd to. [para. 15].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 745, appld. [para. 16].

McCarthy, Tetrault v. Ontario (1993), 95 D.L.R.(4th) 94; 12 C.P.C.(3d) 42 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Harris, 1989 CarswellOnt 2755, refd to. [para. 16].

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. 17].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 17].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 18].

Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574; 376 N.R. 327; 2008 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 22].

Telus Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 329 N.R. 96; 2004 FCA 380, refd to. [para. 24].

Abi-Mansour v. Canada Revenue Agency, [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 199; 2012 FC 376, refd to. [para. 24].

Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2011), 402 F.T.R. 230; 211 A.C.W.S.(3d) 288; 2011 FC 1467, refd to. [para. 24].

Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) v. Cropley et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 187; 70 O.R.(3d) 680 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 27].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. B.D.S. et al. (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 289; 298 W.A.C. 289; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 393; 2003 BCCA 244, refd to. [para. 28].

Ferlatte v. Ventes Rudolph Inc., [1999] Q.J. No. 2735 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Sokolov, Re, [1968] C.T.C. 414; 68 D.T.C. 5266 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Simpson v. R., [1996] 2 C.T.C. 2687 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Dixon v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1992] 1 C.T.C. 109 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1999] 4 F.C. 245; 168 F.T.R. 49, refd to. [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), s. 14.43 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Marlys Edwardh and Jill Copeland, for the applicants;

Brian Harvey, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard on April 24, 2012, in Ottawa, Ontario, by Gleason, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 12, 2012.