PRIVACY |
Ruby v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
T-867-90
2004 FC 594, von Finckenstein J.
29/4/04
24 pp.
Rehearing mandated by F.C.A.--In June 1988, applicant requested from Department of External Affairs (DEA) information about himself allegedly held in DEA/P-PU-040 (Bank 40, personal information about individual disclosed to DEA by federal bodies from ongoing investigations)--In letter dated July 8, 1988, Department refused to confirm, deny such information existed, stating would be exempt from disclosure under Privacy Act, s. 22(1)(a)--Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) refused to confirm, deny it held information about applicant in SIS/P-PU-015 (Bank 10, relating to current, sensitive investigations)--Claimed s. 22(1)(a) exemption--Applicant informed CSIS held informa-tion about him in SIS/P-PU-015 (Bank 15, relating to older, less sensitive investigations), some of which withheld pursuant to Act--On judicial review by Federal Court of merits of exemptions claimed by DEA, CSIS, MacKay J. concluded in Ruby v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [1998] 2 F.C. 351 (T.D.) applications should be dismissed as exemptions validly claimed by DEA, CSIS--In Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2000] 3 F.C. 589, Court of Appeal referred two files back for redetermination --Supreme Court of Canada reversed C.A., upheld McKay J. in respect of s. 22(1)(b) ([2002] 4 S.C.R. 3)--Appropriate standard of review reasonableness--Burden of proof on party invoking exemption to justify actions when faced with request for disclosure--Determination as to whether exemption properly invoked involving two-stage test--First, whether reasonable for head of DEA to conclude information in question fell within Act, s. 22(1)(a)--Given nature of information contained in Bank 40, sources from which such information obtained, compelling logic of department's policy, reasonable for head of DEA to invoke exemption in s. 22(1)(a)--Second, whether head of DEA properly exercised discretion given all of circumstances of case--Considering source, age of information and three criteria in s. 22(1)(a)(i) to (iii), conditions for invoking s. 22(1)(a) met, head of DEA properly exercised discretion--Under Act, s. 19, head of department obliged to refuse to disclose information obtained from another government unless it obtains consent to disclosure--Reasonable efforts made to seek consent of third party who provided requested information--Act, ss. 26, 8 prohibit disclosure of information relating to third party unless third party consents to disclosure or such disclosure otherwise justified--All of information either partially excised from pages released to applicant or exempted from disclosure of such nature that cannot be said "the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy"--Non- personal information appended to secret affidavit containing no reference to applicant, therefore not disclosed in response to request under Privacy Act--Review not raising new principles within meaning of Act, s. 52(2)--Application dismissed--Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 8 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 20, s. 13; (3rd Supp.), c. 1, s. 12; S.C. 1994, c. 35, s. 39; 2000, c. 7, s. 26), 22, 26, 52.