Lavigne v. Official Languages Commr., (2002) 289 N.R. 282 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 289 N.R. 282 (SCC);2002 SCC 53;[2002] CarswellNat 1357;289 NR 282;[2002] SCJ No 55 (QL);214 DLR (4th) 1;[2002] 2 SCR 773

Lavigne v. Official Languages Commr. (2002), 289 N.R. 282 (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: [2002] N.R. TBEd. JN.057

The Commissioner of Official Languages (appellant/respondent on cross-appeal) v. Robert Lavigne (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal) and The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (intervener)

(28188; 2002 SCC 53; 2002 CSC 53)

Indexed As: Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Languages (Can.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

June 20, 2002.

Summary:

Lavigne filed complaints with the Commis­sioner of Official Languages. The Commis­sioner investigated the complaints. Lavigne applied under the Privacy Act for disclosure of interview notes pertaining to him. The Commissioner made only partial disclosure, asserting that certain material was exempted under s. 22(1)(b) given the reasonable expec­tation of probable harm to his investigation. Lavigne sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 157 F.T.R. 15, allowed the application in part and ordered the Commissioner to disclose all the personal information requested by Lavigne. The court denied disclosure of the nonpersonal infor­mation. The Commissioner appealed. Lavigne cross-appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 261 N.R. 19, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The Commissioner appealed. Lavigne cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 2703

Language - General principles - Interpreta­tion of language rights legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of the Official Languages Act and the Privacy Act in relation to each other - The court determined the purpose and scope of the two Acts and analysed the role of the Commissioner appointed under each Act - The court discussed the connec­tion between the two Acts - See para­graphs 20 to 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 7125

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Right to privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2703 ].

Crown - Topic 7170

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Legislation - Disclo­sure - Personal information - Lavigne filed complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages - The Commissioner investigated the complaints and provided assurances to witnesses that the interviews would remain confidential within the limits of ss. 72, 73 and 74 of the Official Lan­guages Act - Lavigne applied under the Privacy Act for disclosure of interview notes pertaining to him - The Commis­sioner claimed that certain notes were exempted on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to investigations (Privacy Act, s. 22(1)(b)) - The Commissioner claimed that, generally, if investigations were not confidential this could compromise their conduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the personal information had to be disclosed - The Commissioner had to base his decision on real grounds that were connected to the specific case in issue - See paragraphs 59 to 65.

Crown - Topic 7201

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a person who makes a request under the Privacy Act is not entitled to information other than personal information - See paragraph 66.

Crown - Topic 7220.04

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Reasonable expectation of probable harm - [See Crown - Topic 7170 ].

Crown - Topic 7220.04

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Reasonable expectation of probable harm - Section 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act provided that the head of a government institution could refuse access to information that was requested if disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of an investigation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was nothing in s. 22(1)(b) that restricted the scope of the word "investigation" to investigations that were underway or were about to com­mence, or limiting the general meaning of that word to specific investigations - See paragraphs 49 to 55.

Words and Phrases

Investigation - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "investigation" as found in s. 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 - See paragraphs 49 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Information Commissioner (Can.) et al. v. Immigration and Refugee Board (Can.) (1997), 140 F.T.R. 140 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Rubin v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1998] 2 F.C. 430; 221 N.R. 145 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 589; 256 N.R. 278 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; 238 N.R. 131; 121 B.C.A.C. 227; 198 W.A.C. 227, refd to. [para. 22].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), agreed with [para. 23].

Rogers v. Correctional Service Canada, [2001] 2 F.C. 586; 199 F.T.R. 196 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Privacy Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 609; 118 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403; 213 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1988] 3 F.C. 551; 20 F.T.R. 314 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Reyes v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1984), 9 Admin. L.R. 296 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

British Columbia Development Corp. v. Friedmann - see British Columbia Devel­opment Corp. v. Ombudsman.

British Columbia Development Corp. v. Ombudsman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 447; 55 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 39].

St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Ottawa v. Ottawa (City), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 616; 45 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 31, sect. 60, sect. 72, sect. 73, sect. 74 [para. 11].

Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, sect. 22(1)(b) [para. 11]; sect. 22(3) [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Braën, André, Language Rights in Canada (1986), vol. 1, pp. 15, 16 [para. 63].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-72, Issue No. 20, June 7, 1988, pp. 20:25, 20:28, 20:29 [para. 44].

Chevrette, François and Marx, Herbert, Droit constitutionnel: notes et jurispru­dence (1982), pp. 1583 to 1588 [para. 63].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 25].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard.

Marshall, Mary A., and Reif, Linda C., The Ombudsman: Maladministration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (1995), 34 Alta. L. Rev. 215, generally [para. 37]; p. 219 [para. 43].

McIsaac, Barbara, Rick Shields and Kris Klein, The Law of Privacy in Canada (2001 Release 4) (Looseleaf), p. 3-15 [para. 29].

Sheppard, Claude-Armand, The Law of Languages in Canada (1971), Study No. 10 of the Royal Commission on Bilingu­alism and Biculturalism, pp. 1 to 96 [para. 63].

Wade, William, Administrative Law (8th Ed. 2000), pp. 87, 88 [para. 38].

Counsel:

Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C., Johane Tremblay and Gregory S. Tzemenakis, for the appellant, the Commissioner of Official Languages;

Robert Lavigne, on his own behalf;

Dougald E. Brown and Steven Welchner, for the intervener, the Privacy Commis­sioner of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Ottawa, Ontario; The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, the Commissioner of Official Languages;

Nelligan O'Brien Payne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Privacy Commis­sioner of Canada.

This appeal was heard on January 17, 2002, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bas­tarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Gonthier, J., delivered the following decision for the court in both official languages on June 20, 2002.