Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
InfoSource Bulletin 2003 - Privacy Act and Access to Information Act
Newfoundland Power Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue
Indexed as: Newfoundland Power Inc. v. Canada
(Minister of National Revenue)
|
File No.: |
T-2029-99 |
|
Reference: |
[2002] F.C.J. No. 939 (QL) (F.C.T.D.) |
|
Date of decision: |
June 19, 2002 |
|
Before: |
Martineau J. |
|
Section(s) of ATIA / PA: |
Ss. 21(1)(b), 25 Access to Information Act (ATIA) |
|
|
Abstract
- Application for judicial review under s. 41 of the ATIA
- Internal memorandum signed by two of the Department's officers
- Interpretation of the term "deliberations" in para. 21(1)(b) of the ATIA
- Discretion exercised in accordance with applicable principles
Issue
Did the federal institution err in refusing to disclose to the requester certain parts of a document pursuant to para. 21(1)(b) of the ATIA? (No)
Facts
This was an application for the judicial review of a decision by the Minister of National Revenue to refuse the disclosure, to the requester, of an entire internal memorandum signed by two of the Department's officers. The respondent refused to disclose certain parts of the memo, invoking the exemption in para. 21(1)(b) of the ATIA under which the head of an institution may refuse to disclose documents that are less than 20 years old and contain an account of consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a government institution, a minister or the staff of a minister.
Decision
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Reasons
The Court held that an "analysis of various strategic or legal options, and any recommendation made by the defendant's officers or employees regarding the position that the defendant should adopt with respect to a taxpayer's notice of objection, are clearly covered by para. 21(1)(b) of the Act. After examining the contents of the memo, the Judge held that the memo contained "deliberations" within the meaning of para. 21(1)(b).
The Court then held that the head of the institution had examined the memorandum in great detail to determine which information was exempt under para. 21(1)(b), and had applied the severance principle as required by s. 25 of the ATIA.
Turning finally to the exercise of discretion conferred by s. 21, the Judge held that since there was no evidence to the contrary, and no evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondent, the discretion appears to have been exercised in full compliance with applicable legal principles. In this regard, the Court cited Canadian Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1999] 4 F.C. 245 (T.D.) at 256-7; Rubin v. Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, [1989] 1 F.C. 265 (C.A.) at 274-5; Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403 at 457-8 and Rubin v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2001), 14 C.P.R. (4th) 1 (F.C.T.D.) at 19.
Consequently, the respondent's refusal to disclose the entire contents of the memorandum was warranted.
