Lawson v. Accusearch Inc., 2007 FC 125

• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2007 FC 125;(2007), 308 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

Lawson v. Accusearch Inc. (2007), 308 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.023

Philippa Lawson (applicant) v. Accusearch Inc. dba Abika.com (respondent) and The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (intervenor)

(T-2228-05; 2007 FC 125)

Indexed As: Lawson v. Accusearch Inc.

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

February 5, 2007.

Summary:

Lawson asked the Privacy Commissioner to investigate the activities of a Wyoming corporation, Abika.com. The Commissioner refused the request on the basis that she lacked jurisdiction to compel U.S. organizations to produce the evidence necessary to conduct the investigation. Lawson sought judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The matter was returned to the Commissioner to be investigated.

Crown - Topic 7144

Examination of public documents - Office of commissioner - Jurisdiction - Lawson asked the Privacy Commissioner to investigate the activities of a Wyoming corporation, Abika.com - Lawson submitted that, although based in the United States, Abika.com violated the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in a number of ways - The Commissioner refused the request on the basis that she lacked jurisdiction to compel U.S. organizations to produce the evidence necessary to conduct the investigation - Lawson sought judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - The Commissioner failed to distinguish her power to investigate from the effectiveness of the investigation - While PIPEDA gave no indication that Parliament intended to legislate extraterritorially, the Commissioner did not lose her power to investigate because she could neither subpoena the organization nor enter its premises - The fact that an investigation might be ineffective was not the point - Even if an order against a non-resident was ineffective, the Commissioner could target the Canadian sources of information - The court concluded that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to investigate and such an investigation was not contingent on Parliament having legislated extraterritorially - See paragraphs 22 to 43.

Crown - Topic 7146

Examination of public documents - Office of commissioner - Investigative powers - [See Crown - Topic 7144 ].

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - Lawson asked the Privacy Commissioner to investigate the activities of a Wyoming corporation, Abika.com, a division of Accusearch Inc. - Lawson submitted that, although based in the United States, Abika.com violated the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in a number of ways - The Commissioner refused the request on the basis that she lacked jurisdiction to compel U.S. organizations to produce the evidence necessary to conduct the investigation - Lawson sought judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - As the case was to be decided on statutory interpretation, particularly the scope of the Commissioner's powers under PIPEDA, the standard of review was correctness - See paragraph 21.

Cases Noticed:

Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al. (2006), 354 N.R. 302; 2006 FCA 334, refd to. [para. 21].

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; 322 N.R. 306; 2004 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 21].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 22].

Englander v. Telus Communications Inc., [2005] 2 F.C. 572; 328 N.R. 297; 247 D.L.R.(4th) 275 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bangoura v. Washington Post et al. (2005), 202 O.A.C. 76; 258 D.L.R.(4th) 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (Bankrupt) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 907; 280 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

United Nations and Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations v. Atlantic Seaways Corp. and Unimarine S.A., [1979] 2 F.C. 541; 28 N.R. 207 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 34].

Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Beals v. Saldanha et al. (2003), 314 N.R. 209; 182 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 34].

Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessel Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 36].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. (2006), 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

David Fewer and Philippa Lawson, for the applicant;

Steven Welchner and Kris Klein, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard on January 22, 2007, by Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on February 5, 2007.