Cunha v. M.N.R.
T-1023-98
Reed J.
5/3/99
8 pp.
Application for declaration breach of statutory rights-Statutory right in issue that of person requesting under Privacy Act personal information in government files to receive response within 30 days or to be given notice extension of time needed (for maximum of 30 days) to respond-On January 13, 1998 applicant requesting certain personal information from Revenue Canada-As result of filing application in Court to require response be given, requested documents sent to applicant July 8, 1998-Application necessary as apparently no mechanism whereby Privacy Commissioner can require compliance with 30-day time limit; Parliament's intention to make information available in timely manner being routinely thwarted-On average Revenue Canada not responding to requests until after 200 days-Request herein taking approximately six months to process, after being given priority because of Court proceedings-By bringing action applicant hoping to send message to those responsible for delays that Parliament's intention being thwarted-Privacy Act, s. 41 permitting application for judicial review if complaint made to Privacy Commissioner-Applicant arguing no mechanism provided for in Privacy Act to deal with situation when Department simply not responding to request as required by ss. 14 to 15-S. 16(3) stating failure to reply to request in accordance with time limits provided for in Act "deemed" refusal-S. 29 setting out circumstances in which complaint can be made to Privacy Commissioner-Deemed refusal under s. 16(3) not one of specifically listed circumstances-Specifically listed circum stances including actual refusal under s. 12(1), or alleged unreasonable extension of time under s. 15, but not deemed refusal pursuant to s. 16(3)-While no specific reference in s. 29(1) to deemed refusals pursuant to s. 16(3), complaint with respect thereto falling within s. 29(1)(h)(i)-Such interpretation consonant with scheme of Privacy Act, context as whole-Actual refusals, breaches of required time limits, as well as breaches of many other sections encompassed in s. 29(1)-Evidencing intention to have government department responses to requests, including deemed refusals, reviewed first by Privacy Commissioner before becoming subject of court proceeding-Description of right of review conferred by s. 41 making it plain Act contemplating complaints being first made to Privacy Commissioner, and only after refusal received from him/her, to Court-Court not having jurisdiction to grant declaration sought-Each party to bear own costs-Although obtaining of documents requested moot after July 8, 1998, and Revenue Canada officials apologizing to applicant for delay, clear ongoing problem with manner in which requests processed (or left unprocessed for extensive periods of time)-While Court not having jurisdiction to grant remedy sought, circumstances such that applicant should not have costs awarded against him-Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 12(1), 15, 16(3), 29(1)(h)(i), 41.