Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Info Source Bulletin Number 29
Nautical Data International Inc. v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Indexed as: Nautical Data International Inc. v. Canada
(Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)
|
File No.: |
T-787-04, T-1348-04, T-1789-04, T-1874-04, T-2059-04, T-263-05 |
|
Reference: |
2005 FC 407 |
|
Date of decision: |
March 23, 2005 |
|
Before: |
Tremblay-Lamer J. |
|
Section of ATIA / PA: |
S. 44 Access to Information Act (ATIA) |
|
Other statute: |
S. 50(1) Federal Courts Act |
|
|
Abstract
- Stay of s. 44 ATIA proceedings
- Two-part test set out in Mon-Oil Ltd. v. Canada and Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Sheena M (The) not met
- No analogy to automatic stay available under Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
Issue
Whether a stay should be granted in respect of all the s. 44 ATIA proceedings.
Facts
The applicant, Nautical Data International, Inc. ("NDI"), brought several applications pursuant to s. 44 ATIA to preclude the respondent, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from disclosing certain information. Before this Court, the applicant brings a motion for a stay of all of those proceedings pursuant to subs. 50(1) of the Federal Courts Act.
Decision
The motion for stay was dismissed.
Reasons
The Court first rejected the applicant's contention that the automatic stay available under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA) in respect of actions brought against insolvent persons should apply by analogy, indicating that "the provisions of the BIA contemplating an automatic stay are intended to provide for the orderly and fair distribution of the property of a bankrupt among its creditors, not to protect an insolvent person from legal relief in matters unrelated to the assets subject to the bankruptcy protection".
Applying the two-part test set out in Mon-Oil Ltd. v. Canada (1989), 26 C.P.R. (3d) 379 (F.C.T.D.) and Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Sheena M (The), [2000] 4 F.C. 159 (T.D.), whereby the applicant must demonstrate that (1) a continuation of the action would cause prejudice or injustice and not merely an inconvenience or extra expense to the party seeking the stay; and (2) a stay would not be unjust to the other side. The Court found that neither the first nor the second part of the test was satisfied.
Respecting the first part, the Court rejected the applicant's contention that devoting its limited resources to meeting the requirements of the proceedings under the ATIA-- providing evidence and attending for cross examination -- would result in "extreme prejudice" to it as it would prejudice its ability to deal with the matters relating to its proposal under the BIA. The Court indicated that "...notwithstanding that NDI may have limited resources the type of hardship that the applicant describes amounts to inconvenience and expense rather than 'extreme prejudice'". Stays are only appropriate in the clearest of cases and the onus of convincing a court that there ought to be a stay is a heavy one.
Respecting the second part, the Court found that the respondent would suffer an injustice if the stay were granted. The respondent has an obligation under the ATIA to provide access to information to requestors unless certain statutory exemptions come into play. This right to access information has been held to be quasi-constitutional and therefore not to be readily interfered with. Granting the stay would cause significant delay in access to the information and prejudice the respondent's ability to fulfill its obligations under the ATIA.
