Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2008-10-22
Neutral citation 2008 FCA 321
File numbers A-492-07

Decision Content

Date: 20081022

Dockets: A-492-07

A-568-07

 

Citation: 2008 FCA 321

 

CORAM:       SEXTON J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.

 

A-492-07

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Appellant

and

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

A-568-07

BETWEEN:

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

Appellant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

 

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 22, 2008.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 22, 2008.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                             SHARLOW J.A.

 

Date: 20081022

Dockets: A-492-07

A-568-07

Citation: 2008 FCA 321

 

CORAM:       SEXTON J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.

 

A-492-07

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Appellant

and

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

A-568-07

BETWEEN:

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

Appellant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 22, 2008)

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]               We have not been persuaded that the decision of Justice de Montigny discloses any error of law or any other error that warrants the intervention of this Court.

 

[2]               The question of solicitor and client privilege seems to have arisen in this case only because the Attorney General objected to the February 16 order, which simply states that questions asked, answers given and exhibits referred to by the witness were not to be disclosed by counsel for the witness without the consent of the witness. There was no application for judicial review of the February 16 order.

 

[3]               The application that underlies this appeal challenges the February 21 decision, which the Attorney General interprets as saying that if the witness gives consent to a disclosure by counsel as contemplated in the February 16 order, the consent must necessarily constitute a waiver of the witness’ solicitor and client privilege. We do not accept that interpretation of the February 21 decision, in light of the February 16 order.

 

[4]               This appeal will be dismissed with costs.

 

 

"K. Sharlow"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-492-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              Attorney General of Canada v. Information Commissioner of Canada

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Ottawa, Ontario

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          October 22, 2008

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       (SEXTON, EVANS, SHARLOW JJ.A.)

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            SHARLOW J.A.

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Christopher Rupar

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

Daniel Brunet

Diane Therrien

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

 

Information Commissioner of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-568-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              Information Commissioner of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Ottawa, Ontario

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          October 22, 2008

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       (SEXTON, EVANS, SHARLOW JJ.A.)

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            SHARLOW J.A.

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Christopher Rupar

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

Daniel Brunet

Diane Therrien

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

 

Information Commissioner of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 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.