Info Source
www.infosource.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Info Source Bulletin Number 29
Footnotes
[1] These reasons should be read in conjunction with the supplemental reasons for order dated May 9, 2005 (2005 C 648) where the Court held that the head of a government institution is authorized to reverse his initial decision not to disclose information in a s. 29 ATIA or s. 44 ATIA circumstance.
[2] Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1997), 27 F.T.R. 194 (F.C.T.D.).
[3] The Court of Appeal held, in paragraph 66, that when a request is made under the ATIA for access to a privileged document, the government must sever and disclose the general identifying information from that document. Such information includes the description of the document, the name, title and address of the person to whom the communication was addressed, the closing words of the communication and the signature block.
[4] Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General entitled Open and Shut: Enhancing the Right to Know and the Right to Privacy.
[5] The issue of « control » of the records was not addressed by the Court as it had previously been dealt with by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), 2004 FCA 286. The FCA rejected CPC's argument that the dual responsibility of the Minister of PWGSC as head of that Department and as the Minister responsible for CPC removed CPC from the scope of the ATIA. The FCA ruled that the records at issue therein were in the possession of PWGSC and thereby under its control. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied on March 18, 2005. The SCC's ruling effectively disposed of the similar issue raised in the two cases under consideration here.
[6] The s. 44 application for judicial review was the subject-matter of the decision rendered by Phelan J. on February 8, 2005 (2005 FC 189).
[7] The present reasons for order were made following the granting of a motion for reconsideration brought by AstraZeneca to deal with the issue of whether the Minister had jurisdiction to disclose information which he/she previously decided was exempt from disclosure. The reasons allowing the motion are found at 2005 FC 623.
[8] The information which according to the Minister can be disclosed has been assessed by Phelan J. against the criteria in s. 20–see 2005 FC 189.
[9] These reasons should be read in conjunction with the Court's decision in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2005 FC 189.
[10] The Board is subject to the PA.
[11] The Court held that the notion of what is "necessary" for a full and proper hearing under rule 39(2) of the Refugee Protection Division Rules was equivalent to the notion of relevance, as least insofar as that rule was concerned.
