Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 649

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Beaudry, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Citation: 2011 FC 649,(2011), 391 F.T.R. 28 (FC)
• Date: 17 May 2011

PSAC v. Can. (A.G.) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 28 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.033

Public Service Alliance of Canada (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1671-09; 2011 FC 649)

Indexed As: Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Beaudry, J.

June 8, 2011.

Summary:

The applicant sought review pursuant to s. 41 of the Access to Information Act of an access to information request made to the Department of Justice dated June 5, 2009. The applicant sought a declaration that an extension of time requested by the respondent was unreasonable and amounted to a deemed refusal of access to the requested information, and an order compelling the respondent to disclose the information requested in a timely fashion.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Crown - Topic 7244

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Jurisdiction - The applicant sought review pursuant to s. 41 of the Access to Information Act of an access to information request made to the Department of Justice - The applicant sought, inter alia, a declaration that an extension of time requested by the respondent was unreasonable and amounted to a deemed refusal to give access - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Parliament had clearly provided for "deemed refusals" in s. 10(3) but not elsewhere in the Act - A "deemed refusal" was when the department failed to give access to the record within the time limits set out in the Act (i.e., either 30 days as provided in s. 7 or an extended time limit under s. 9) - Here, the extended time limit had not expired so there could be no "deemed refusal" to give access - Further, except where there was an ongoing refusal of access, "it is not the role of the Court to immerse itself in the reasonability of the conduct of the internal affairs of a government department" (X v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1991 F.C.T.D.)) - The Commissioner had found that the extension was reasonable - Therefore, the court was unable to find that the extension amounted to a deemed refusal that gave it jurisdiction to hear the application.

Crown - Topic 7287.01

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Practice - Notices - Time limitations - [See Crown - Topic 7244 ].

Cases Noticed:

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of External Affairs), [1989] 1 F.C. 4; 18 F.T.R. 278 (T.D.), dist. [para. 11].

Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of External Affairs), [1990] 3 F.C. 514 (T.D.), dist. [para. 11].

X v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), [1991] 1 F.C. 670; 46 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.), [2002] 4 F.C. 110; 216 F.T.R. 274; 2002 FCT 136, refd to. [para. 13].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (2011), 416 N.R. 105; 2011 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

Andrew Astritis, for the applicant;

Jennifer Francis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck, LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard on May 17, 2011, at Ottawa, Ontario, by Beaudry, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 8, 2011.