Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
ARCHIVED - Info Source Bulletin Number 27
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Information Commissioner of Canada v. Attorney General
of Canada and Bruce Hartley
Indexed as: Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Attorney General)
|
File Nos.: |
A-82-02, A 374-02 |
|
References: |
2003 FCA 285; [2003] F.C.J. No. 1006 (QL) |
|
Date of decision: |
June 25, 2003 |
|
Before: |
Richard C.J., Linden and Rothstein JJ.A. |
|
Sections of ATIA / PA: |
Ss. 4, 35, 36, 62, 63, 64, 65 Access to Information Act (ATIA) |
|
|
Abstract
- Transcripts of in camera proceedings before the Deputy Information Commissioner
Issue
Did the Trial Division Judge err when he ordered that the transcripts of the proceedings before the Deputy Information Commissioner be filed, on a confidential basis, on the judicial review applications?
Facts
These were two appeals brought by the Information Commissioner from two interlocutory decisions ordering the Commissioner to file, on a confidential basis, transcripts with the Federal Court and with opposing counsel.[2]
Decision
The appeals were dismissed.
Reasons
The Trial Division Judge did not err in concluding that Rules 317 and 318 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not conflict with the ATIA. Also, the applicants in these proceedings have requested that the material be filed with the Court and with counsel on a confidential basis pursuant to Rule 152 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998,and the very matter under review in these applications are the investigatory processes of the Information Commissioner. Without access to the transcripts, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the applicants to put forward their case. The Trial Judge therefore properly distinguished this case from the Rubin and Petzinger decisions.[3]
