Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PRACTICE

Confidentiality Orders

McCabe v. Canada (Attorney General)

T-398-00

Dawson J.

11/8/00

8 pp.

Respondent moving to set aside order by which whole of certified materials transmitted from National Parole Board to Registry, portions of applicant's record, treated as confidential pursuant to Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 151--Applicant asking order be varied so that transcript of proceedings before National Parole Board, psychiatric assessment, psychological reports remaining confidential--In order to obtain relief under r. 151, party seeking relief must (1) establish belief its interests would be harmed by disclosure (subjective test); (2) prove, on balance of probabilities, information in fact confidential (objective test)--With respect to psychiatric assessment, psychological reports, only evidence to satisfy subjective aspect of test--Psychiatric assessment expressly proceeded on basis applicant acknowledged probable distribution of report--Objective test not met in relation to psychiatric assessment--As for psychological reports, applicant's concerns surround disclosures about childhood, upbringing, intimate relationships--Such details contained in psychiatric assessment--Based upon content of psychological reports, applicant not meeting heavy onus to establish requirements for maintaining confidentiality of psychological reports--Applicant arguing public policy militating in favour of maintaining order so that inmates will be encouraged to make full disclosure to their therapists--Court not prepared to extend public policy concerns beyond those recognized, asserted by National Parole Board (jeopardizing safety, security of victims, witnesses; discouraging future witnesses, other sources of information from coming forward if confidentiality could not be guaranteed; efficacy of legislation offering protection to witnesses, victims would be undermined if Board required to produce material)--Motion allowed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 151.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.