Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
ARCHIVED - Info Source Bulletin Number 28
This page has been archived.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.
Nash v. Solicitor General of Canada
Indexed as: Nash v. Canada (Solicitor General)
| File No.: | T-1050-03 |
| Reference: | 2004 FC 576 |
| Date of decision: | April 16, 2004 |
| Before: | Kelen J. |
| Sections of ATIA / PA: | Ss. 3, 8, 26 Privacy Act (PA) |
 |
|
Abstract
- Personal information about third parties
- Non-existence of information
Issue
Has CSC properly withheld the information requested pursuant to s. 26 PA?
Facts
The applicant, a parole officer, sought access to information held by the Correctional Service Canada (CSC) regarding a "threat risk assessment" investigation conducted by CSC following information it received from an informant about an alleged threat made by an inmate against the applicant. More specifically, the applicant sought a copy of the draft and final reports of the assessment, and of all information received and used to complete the assessment. Based on the evidence it gathered, the CSC concluded that it was unlikely that the alleged threat would be carried out against the applicant or his family.
CSC redacted certain information from the documents it released to the applicant on the basis of s. 26 PA. The redacted information comprised the identification of inmates, inmates' Finger Print Section numbers, their criminal histories and other personal data about individuals other than the applicant. The applicant submits that he is not seeking access to the identity of the informant but seeks the substance of the informant's interviews conducted by CSC in order to determine if the conclusions reached by the latter are justified.
Decision
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Reasons
Upon a detailed review of the evidence on record, the Court held that CSC properly withheld information about individuals other than the applicant. In addition, the Court was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the applicant had received all the interview notes that existed, and that the notes the applicant was seeking in his s. 41 application were non-existent.
