Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Info Source Bulletin Number 28
Mamidie Keïta and Bernard Michaud v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Indexed as: Keïta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
| File No.: | T-676-03 |
| Reference: | 2004 FC 626 |
| Date of decision: | April 28, 2004 |
| Before: | Tremblay-Lamer J. |
| Sections of ATIA / PA: | Ss. 26 and 41 Privacy Act (PA) |
 |
|
Abstract
- The only power the Court has in a review under s. 41 of the PA is to order the disclosure of information when access has been refused contrary to the provisions of the Act
- The Privacy Commissioner's findings and recommendations are not subject to review by the Court
Issues
- What are the limits of the Court's jurisdiction in a review under s. 41 of the PA?
- Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations?
Facts
On June 26, 2001, the applicants filed access requests for some personal information. On August 16, 2001, the Minister gave the applicants some of the records requested. Additional information was subsequently provided to the applicants.
Not satisfied with the information provided by the Minister, the applicants filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. At the end of his investigation, the Commissioner informed the applicants that their complaints were well founded, but since the Minister provided them with the missing personal information following the filing of the complaint he considered the matter resolved. Regarding certain information that was requested but not disclosed by the Minister, the Commissioner informed the applicants that this information involved other individuals and that it was therefore exempt from disclosure in accordance with s. 26 of the PA. The Commissioner also informed them that the embassies in Abidjian and Conarky did not have any other personal information about them as the records had been destroyed at the end of the maximum two-year retention period.
After they received the Commissioner's report, the applicants sent a letter to him asking that he reply to some questions. The Commissioner refused to reopen his investigation.
On November 17, 2003, the applicants filed an application for judicial review pursuant to s. 41 of the PA. This application requested the review of the decision of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to refuse the disclosure of certain information and, among other things, a review of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations. The applicants sought several remedies including damages, letters of apology from the Minister and the Commissioner, and the modification of the content of Citizenship and Immigration Canada files.
Decision
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Reasons
Issue 1
Tremblay-Lamer J. first noted that the only power the Court has in a review under s. 41 of the PA is to order the disclosure of information when access has been refused contrary to the provisions of the Act. The applicants requested several remedies that cannot be given in the context of this judicial review. This includes the request for damages, the request for a letter of apology from the Minister, the request to meet someone with "sufficient authority" and the request to have the content of the files at Citizenship and Immigration Canada modified.
Regarding the disclosure of certain personal information about other individuals, the Court was of the opinion that s. 26 of the Act applies and that the Minister acted in good faith and in accordance with the Act in handling the access request.
Issue 2
Based on the statements of Noël J. in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bellemare (2000), 270 N.R. 269 (F.C.T.D.), the Court concluded that the merits of the Commissioner's recommendations are not open to review by the Court.
