A key publication by two of the country's leading access and privacy lawyers
Comprehensive in scope, it contains everything you need to interpret and apply federal access to information and privacy legislation. In addition to expert analysis, this practical reference contains a compendium of key materials.
This new edition features significant updates and revisions to various chapters in the book.
Chapter 1 (Annotated Access to Information Act) – In this chapter, the authors update statistics and commentary related to sections 6, 30, 54, and 58 of the Access to Information Act. In the commentary related to section 54, the author reviews and comments on in detail the selection criteria for Information Commissioner. The author reviews section 58 and comments on the structure of the staff of the Information Commissioner.
Chapter 1 (Annotated Access to Information Act) – Section 3 – Interpretation – Government Institutions - Yeager v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 FC 330, paras. 45-49, 50-53, Elliott J. In this Application for judicial review, the Applicant argued that whether records exist at the department level is not relevant. The definition of “government institution” in section 3 of the ATIA is clear and explicit: it means any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada, or any body or office, listed in Schedule I. Subsection 4(1) provides a right of access to any record under the control of a government institution, subject to certain exemptions provided elsewhere in the ATIA.
Chapter 6 (Annotated Privacy Act) – In this chapter, the list Privacy Legislation Around the World has been updated. Also updated is the commentary related to sections 8, 12, 21, 28, 29, 35, 39, and 58. In particular there is added commentary on bureaucratic overhead and infrastructure.
Chapter 6 (Annotated Privacy Act) – Section 8(2)(c) – Disclosure of Personal Information – Where Personal information may be Disclosed - Ritchie v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 114, para. 47, Scott, de Montigny and Woods JJ.A. “[. . .] in the absence of a confidentiality
order, no party involved in public litigation has an expectation of privacy in relation to Court documents (see paragraphs 8(2)(b),(c), and (3) of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21).”
Chapter 6 (Annotated Privacy Act) – Section 7 – Protection of Personal Information - O’Grady v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 2017, paras. 1, 5, 43, 70 and 74, Russell J.:  This is an application under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7 [Federal Courts Act] for judicial review of a decision of the Chief of Statistics, dated January 7, 2011 [Letter of Agreement], whereby Statistics Canada entered into an agreement with McGill University’s Faculty of Medicine [McGill] to conduct a study examining perinatal outcomes in Canada.“ The Court concluded that: “ It is clear that Statistics Canada could not have contemplated the Study at the time of either the 1996 census or the 2006 census. Hence, the information collected by those censuses was not obtained specifically for the Study. However, the purpose of the Study is to compile and analyse statistics related to the health and welfare of Canadians, so that it complies with the purpose of the censuses and with Statistics Canada’s mandate.” In the Court’s view, therefore, the Study satisfied the Bernard, above, test for “consistent use.” “This means it is compliant with s 7 of the Privacy Act.