A key publication by two of the country's leading access and privacy lawyers
This practical reference is comprehensive in scope, containing everything you need to interpret and apply federal access to information and privacy legislation. In addition to expert analysis, it also contains a compendium of key materials.
New in this edition
- Annotated Access to Information Act – Third Party Information – Where a request pertains to information submitted to a government agency by a third party, notice must be given to that third party, who may then argue that disclosure is prohibited by section 20. Section 20 covers trade secrets, confidential scientific or technical information and information the disclosure of which may result in financial loss, competitive disadvantage or interference with contractual negotiations. Litigation concerning those provisions may be costly and time-consuming. In this case, the information submitted did not show that access to information legislation had been successful in ensuring clinical trial transparency: Doshi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 710.
- Annotated Access to Information Act – Third Party Information - In this section 44 Application, Bombardier Inc. was seeking judicial review of four decisions made by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), or its predecessor, Industry Canada, in response to two requests for information made under the Access to Information Act. Bombardier opposed the release of some of the requested information, asserting that, when combined with publicly available data, it would enable accurate inferences to be drawn about commercially sensitive information that could damage its competitive position. The information sought was with respect to the total amount of Technology Partnerships Canada funding approved, paid out to, and repaid up to April 1, 2009, and to certain specified TPC projects as of August 26, 2011 – each investment, repayable contribution and loans approved under the Technology Partnerships Canada, to May 3, 2002. At the time of the hearing, some information had been made public, only eight entries in a spreadsheet remained in dispute. In its analysis of the 20(1)(b) exemption, applying the Air Atonabee test, the Court concluded that Bombardier failed to establish that the disputed information was communicated to ISED with a reasonable expectation that it would not be disclosed to the public. With regard to the 20(1)(c) exemption, the Court concluded that Bombardier has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of probable harm with the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA that would directly result from the disclosure of the disputed information that is “well beyond” or “considerably above” the merely possible or speculative: Bombardier inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 207.
- Annotated Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act Publication – Schedule 1, Principles Set Out in the National Standard of Canada Entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, CAN/CSA-Q830-96 - Principle 7: Safeguards - In this Application, the Court concluded that the Respondent was in violation of its obligations under clause 4.7.1 of the PIPEDA by failing to take appropriate safeguard measures to protect against the loss of personal information. The Respondent indicated to the OPC that the Applicant’s records had been picked up by a secure destruction service provider when they were actually in the desk of the very same Manager who conducted the initial investigation into the Applicant’s complaint. The fact that the Respondent informed the OPC that the Applicant’s personal records were destroyed, when in fact they were not, led the court to the conclusion that the Respondent did not know where the Applicant’s personal records were located: Montalbo v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 FC 1155.
- Annotated Privacy Act –Where Access is Refused – In this case, the Federal Court stated that the issue of whether a government institution can adopt a policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of information is well established in the jurisprudence. The institution has a discretion to do so but it must be exercised reasonably in the context of the factual circumstances involved in each case. The Court was satisfied that, in this case, the CSE’s discretion to adopt a policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of personal information was reasonably exercised: Martinez v. Canada (Communications Security Establishment), 2018 FC 1179.