Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Info Source Bulletin Number 28
Canada Post Corporation v. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada
Indexed as: Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)
| File No.: | T-1900-00 |
| Reference: | 2004 FC 2 |
| Date of decision: | January 6, 2004 |
| Before: | Lemieux J. |
| Sections of ATIA / PA: | Ss. 20, 27, 28 and 44 Access to Information Act (ATIA) |
 |
|
Abstract
- Failure to provide proper s. 27 notice
- No harm to third party
- Third party had opportunity to object to disclosure and made use of that opportunity
Issue
Does the failure to give the third party proper notice under s. 27 ATIA a ground for allowing a s. 44 application for judicial review?
Facts
Canada Post is seeking a s. 44 judicial review of a decision by the Access to Information Coordinator in Public Works to release five documents in response to two requests for access. (Five documents were said to be relevant to the first request while one of the five was relevant to the second request.) Two of the issues raised in the s. 44 application have been dealt with in 2004 FC 1. The question at issue here turns on the alleged failure by the respondent to give proper s. 27 notice to the applicant.
The facts are the following. The Access Coordinator had advised Canada Post of the request for disclosure of five documents but had mistakenly identified the wording of one of the request. In addition, the letter sent by the respondent referred to an older request. The letter did not refer to the second request. The Access Coordinator had, however, appended the five documents to the letter. Upon receipt of this letter, Canada Post informed the Access Coordinator of the mistake, but nevertheless made brief submissions against the disclosure of the five appended documents. A meeting was held between the two parties in order to discuss the disclosure of the five documents. The Access Coordinator later wrote to Canada Post, advising the Corporation that the documents would be disclosed in part.
Decision
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Reasons
The Access Coordinator breached the Access to Information Act by (1) providing a defective notice, (2) not respecting the statutory time limit for the issuance of the notice, and (3) not providing a notice for the second request.
However, since Canada Post suffered no harm, the application for review was dismissed without costs. The Court, relying on Cyanamid Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health & Welfare (1992), 45 C.P.R. (3d) 390 (F.C.A.), held that to allow the application would only cause the filing of new requests which would not promote the main object of ss. 27 and 28. Even with the confusion, Canada Post had had the opportunity to make objections to the disclosure, both in writing and at the meeting where it was acknowledged that CPC officials had the five documents with them. While the breach by Public Works did not enable CPC to comment on whether the documents fell within the scope of the requests, CPC had not seriously contended that this was the case. The Court noted that a s. 44 review by the Court is a review de novo.
