Annual Report: 2004-2005CHAPTER V: LEGAL SERVICES
B. The Commissioner in the Courts
IV. The Information Commissioner as an Intervener
The Attorney General of Canada v. H.J. Heinz Co. of
Canada Ltd. and The Information Commissioner of Canada 2004 FCA 171,
T-161-03, Federal Court of Appeal, Desjardins J.A., Nadon J.A., Pelletier J.A.,
reasons for judgment by Nadon J.A., April 30, 2004
Nature of Proceedings
This was an appeal brought by the Attorney General of a decision
of the Application Judge which allowed a third party, Heinz, to raise an
exemption other than section 20 in the context of a proceeding brought pursuant
to section 44 of the Access to Information Act. The Information
Commissioner sought and obtained intervenor status for the purpose of the
hearing of the appeal.
Factual Background
On June 16, 2000, a request for information was made to the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (hereinafter "CFIA"). Pursuant to section 27 of
the ATIA, CFIA advised the third party, Heinz, of its intention to disclose
information requested under the Access to Information Act and, after
receiving representations from Heinz, informed Heinz of its intention to
disclose requested records, subject to certain redactions.
In turn, Heinz applied for judicial review of CFIA’s decision to
release the requested records pursuant to section 44 of the ATIA. In its notice
of application, the sole exemption raised by Heinz was the purported application
of section 20 of the ATIA. Subsequently, and after obtaining a broad
confidentiality order, Heinz made written and oral arguments raising, in
addition to section 20, the personal information exemption found at section 19.
The Application Judge concluded that portions of the records
intended to be disclosed be redacted based on subsection 20(1) of the Act.
However, more notable is the Application Judge’s conclusion that a third party
can invoke section 19 as a basis for refusal within the context of a section 44
proceeding. In reaching this conclusion, the Application Judge reasoned that the
decision in Siemens Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Public
Works and Government Services) (2002), 21 C.P.R. (4th) 575 (F.C.A.) was
binding.
Issues Before the Court
At issue is whether a third party, within the meaning of the
Access to Information Act, may raise an exemption other than subsection
20(1) within the context of section 44 application for judicial review.
Likewise, at issue is a novel argument raised at the hearing of
the appeal, namely that the Federal Court of appeal is bound by the principle of
stare decisis to its previous ruling in Siemens Canada Ltd. v.
Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) (2002), 21 C.P.R.
(4th) 575 (F.C.A.).
Findings
See the summary of reasons at www.infocom.gc.ca.
Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal with
costs.
Action Taken
The Attorney General of Canada has sought and successfully
obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on December 17, 2004 (SCC
file 30417).
The Information Commissioner has been granted leave to intervene
in this appeal.
|