BETWEEN:
and
Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on October 18, 2005.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 5, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LINDEN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20051205
Docket: A-84-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 405
CORAM: LINDENJ.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
SHELDON BLANK
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal from the Federal Court involving the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 as amended (Access Act). The Minister of Justice made a motion to file confidential affidavits in respect of four applications brought by the appellant pursuant to section 41 of the Access Act for judicial review of the government's decision to exempt certain documents from disclosure. The Federal Court judge granted the motion.
[2] The affidavits that the Minister filed in confidence contain exhibits, some of which are records the Minister says are subject to solicitor-client privilege. Pursuant to section 23 of the Access Act, the government may refuse to disclose any record that contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. Other exhibits are documents that constitute exchanges between the Information Commissioner and officials of the Department of Justice in the course of the investigation of this matter by the Information Commissioner. Finally, there is narrative in the affidavits pertaining to the documents. Public versions of the affidavits have been filed in which portions of the confidential affidavits, which the Minister says would disclose the records sought and the investigation of the Information Commissioner, have been redacted.
[3] In this appeal, the appellant is not asking for disclosure of the records that are the subject matter of his section 41 applications. However, he submits that the balance of the affidavits including the documents relating to the Information Commissioner's investigation and the redacted portions of the affidavits must be disclosed to him. He says the Minister need not file these affidavits but once he chooses to do so the affidavits have to be disclosed to him.
[4] In granting the Minister's motion allowing the affidavits to be filed in confidence without being disclosed to the appellant, the motions judge seems to have relied on section 35 of the Access Act. He gave two reasons for this conclusion:
First, because the Access Act creates a general presumption that representations made to the Information Commissioner are to be kept confidential. This encourages government departments being investigated by the Information Commissioner to provide complete and candid disclosure in the course of the investigation. Second, this is not a case where the respondent is attempting to file confidential information in furtherance of an allegation that it has raised or to obtain a remedy. Rather, it is merely defending itself against an allegation put forward by the applicant. The material is being used as a shield, not as a sword.
[5] The presumption referred to in the judge's reasons is reflected in subsections 35(1) and (2) of the Act:
|
35.(1) Every investigation of a complaint under this Act by the Information Commissioner shall be conducted in private.
(2) In the course of an investigation of a complaint under this Act by the Information Commissioner, a reasonable opportunity to make representations shall be given to
(a) the person who made the complaint,
(b) the head of the government institution concerned, and
(c) where the Information Commissioner intends to recommend under subsection 37(1) that a record or a part thereof be disclosed that contains or that the Information Commissioner has reason to believe might contain (i) trade secrets of a third party, (ii) information described in paragraph 20(1)(b) that was supplied by a third party, or (iii) information the disclosure of which the Information Commissioner could reasonably foresee might effect a result described in paragraph 20(1)(c) or (d) in respect of a third party, the third party, if the third party can reasonably be located, but no one is entitled as of right to be present during, to have access to or to comment on representations made to the Commissioner by any other person.
|
35. (1) Les enquêtes menées sur les plaintes par le Commissaire à l'information sont secrètes.
(2) Au cours de l'enquête, les personnes suivantes doivent avoir la possibilité de présenter leurs observations au Commissaire à l'information, nul n'ayant toutefois le droit absolu d'être présent lorsqu'une autre personne présente des observations au Commissaire à l'information, ni d'en recevoir communication ou de faire des commentaires à leur sujet :
a) la personne qui a déposé la plainte;
b) le responsable de l'institution fédérale concernée;
c) le tiers visé au paragraphe 27(1), si le Commissaire à l'information a l'intention de recommander, en vertu du paragraphe 37(1), la communication d'un document visé au paragraphe 27(1). |
[6] I have no doubt that the intention of Parliament is that an investigation by the Information Commissioner should be conducted in private. Further, the confidentiality of the investigation survives the conclusion of the investigation. See Rubin v. Canada, [1994] 2 F.C. 707 at 718 per Stone J.A.
[7] However, in the Minister's notices of motion to file the confidential affidavits, he does not refer to section 35. Rather, he relies on subsection 47(1) of the Access Act and rules 151 and 152 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, as amen. in SOR/2004-283.
[8] Subsection 47(1) of the Access Act provides:
| 47(1) In any proceedings before the Court arising from an application under section 41, 42 or 44, the Court shall take every reasonable precaution, including, when appropriate, receiving representations ex parte and conducting hearings in camera, to avoid the disclosure by the Court or any person of
(a) any information or other material on the basis of which the head of a government institution would be authorized to refuse to disclose a part of a record requested under this Act; or (b) any information as to whether a record exists where the head of a government institution, in refusing to disclose the record under this Act, does not indicate whether it exists. |
47(1) À l'occasion des procédures relatives aux recours prévus aux articles 41, 42 et 44, la Cour prend toutes les précautions possibles, notamment, si c'est indiqué, par la tenue d'audiences à huis clos et l'audition d'arguments en l'absence d'une partie, pour éviter que ne soient divulgués de par son propre fait ou celui de quiconque :
a) des renseignements qui, par leur nature, justifient, en vertu de la présente loi, un refus de communication totale ou partielle d'un document;
b) des renseignements faisant état de l'existence d'un document que le responsable d'une institution fédérale a refusé de communiquer sans indiquer s'il existait ou non. |
The precautions referred to in subsection 47(1) are applicable in respect of information or material that forms the basis for the government's refusal to disclose a record under a provision of the Access Act.
[9] Rules 151 and 152 set out the procedure to be followed when a party wishes to have material treated as confidential. Rules 151 and 152 provide:
| 151. (1) On motion, the Court may order that material to be filed shall be treated as confidential.
(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Court must be satisfied that the material should be treated as confidential, notwithstanding the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings.
152. (1) Where the material is required by law to be treated confidentially or where the Court orders that material be treated confidentially, a party who files the material shall separate and clearly mark it as confidential, identifying the legislative provision or the Court order under which it is required to be treated as confidential.
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court,
(a) only a solicitor of record, or a solicitor assisting in the proceeding, who is not a party is entitled to have access to confidential material;
(b) confidential material shall be given to a solicitor of record for a party only if the solicitor gives a written undertaking to the Court that he or she will (i) not disclose its content except to solicitors assisting in the proceeding or to the Court in the course of argument,
(ii) not permit it to be reproduced in whole or in part, and
(iii) destroy the material and any notes on its content and file a certificate of their destruction or deliver the material and notes as ordered by the Court, when the material and notes are no longer required for the proceeding or the solicitor ceases to be solicitor of record;
(c) only one copy of any confidential material shall be given to the solicitor of record for each party; and
(d) no confidential material or any information derived therefrom shall be disclosed to the public.
(3) An order made under subsection (1) continues in effect until the Court orders otherwise, including for the duration of any appeal of the proceeding and after final judgment. |
151. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner que des documents ou éléments matériels qui seront déposés soient considérés comme confidentiels.
(2) Avant de rendre une ordonnance en application du paragraphe (1), la Cour doit être convaincue de la nécessité de considérer les documents ou éléments matériels comme confidentiels, étant donné l'intérêt du public à la publicité des débats judiciaires. 152. (1) Dans le cas où un document ou un élément matériel doit, en vertu d'une règle de droit, être considéré comme confidentiel ou dans le cas où la Cour ordonne de le considérer ainsi, la personne qui dépose le document ou l'élément matériel le fait séparément et désigne celui-ci clairement comme document ou élément matériel confidentiel, avec mention de la règle de droit ou de l'ordonnance pertinente.
(2) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour :
a) seuls un avocat inscrit au dossier et un avocat participant à l'instance qui ne sont pas des parties peuvent avoir accès à un document ou à un élément matériel confidentiel;
b) un document ou élément matériel confidentiel ne peut être remis à l'avocat inscrit au dossier que s'il s'engage par écrit auprès de la Cour :
(i) à ne pas divulguer son contenu, sauf aux avocats participant à l'instance ou à la Cour pendant son argumentation, (ii) à ne pas permettre qu'il soit entièrement ou partiellement reproduit, (iii) à détruire le document ou l'élément matériel et les notes sur son contenu et à déposer un certificat de destruction, ou à les acheminer à l'endroit ordonné par la Cour, lorsqu'ils ne seront plus requis aux fins de l'instance ou lorsqu'il cessera d'agir à titre d'avocat inscrit au dossier;
c) une seule reproduction d'un document ou d'un élément matériel confidentiel est remise à l'avocat inscrit au dossier de chaque partie;
d) aucun document ou élément matériel confidentiel et aucun renseignement provenant de celui-ci ne peuvent être communiqués au public.
(3) L'ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe (1) demeure en vigueur jusqu'à ce que la Cour en ordonne autrement, y compris pendant la durée de l'appel et après le jugement final.
|
[10] Where the government files material explaining its reasons for refusing to disclose records, subsection 47(1) will apply to portions of the material that would disclose the basis of the government's confidentiality claim. Rules 151 and 152 set out the process to be followed when section 47 is relied upon by the government.
[11] The Minister says that the appellant has raised as an issue the fact that the government did not follow all the disclosure recommendations of the Information Commissioner. In his material, the appellant has pointed out what he found out from a letter he received from the Information Commissioner, which says that "the Deputy Minister informed me that Justice agreed to follow some but not all of my recommendations." The Minister says that to defend himself he has to be able to place documents pertaining to the Information Commissioner's investigation and his officials' explanations before the Court confidentially.
[12] It has been held that the considered opinion of the Information Commissioner should not be ignored by the Court (see Rubin v. Canada, [1989] 1 F.C. 265 at 272 per Heald J.A.) and that the Information Commissioner has expertise not possessed by the Court with respect to access to information (see Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Prime Minister)(T.D.), [1993] 1 F.C. 427 at 499). If the appellant intends to rely on the recommendation of the Information Commissioner that there should be more disclosure than the Minister is prepared to grant, the Minister should be able to provide to the Court the government's exchanges with the Information Commissioner to explain why he believes the Information Commissioner's investigation and conclusion are flawed. The question is whether he may do so without disclosing that information to the appellant.
[13] Section 62 of the Access Act imposes an obligation on the Information Commissioner not to disclose information that he acquires in an investigation. Section 62 provides:
| 62. Subject to this Act, the Information Commissioner and every person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner shall not disclose any information that comes to their knowledge in the performance of their duties and functions under this Act.
|
62. Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, le Commissaire à l'information et les personnes agissant en son nom ou sous son autorité sont tenus au secret en ce qui concerne les renseignements dont ils prennent connaissance dans l'exercice des pouvoirs et fonctions que leur confère la présente loi.
|
[14] Section 35 must be read together with section 62. The obligation of confidentiality under section 35 is imposed on the Information Commissioner. As the motions judge pointed out, the reason is to promote the objective of full disclosure by the government in the course of an investigation.
[15] However, section 35 does not preclude the government from making exchanges with the Information Commissioner public should it wish to do so. It is the government's confidentiality that is being protected by section 35. Should the government choose to waive that protection, I see no reason why it should not be able to do so.
[16] Because of the public interest in open court proceedings, filing material in court normally implies that the material will be public. If the Minister chooses to file material pertaining to the investigation by the Information Commissioner, he may do so. But section 35 will not entitle him to have the evidence treated as confidential.
[17] The Minister may elect to file material pertaining to the Information Commissioner's investigation publicly. However, if he wishes to file such material confidentially, either in whole or in part, section 47 and rules 151 and 152 will apply. It is for the motions judge to determine whether disclosure of some or all of the material sought to be filed in confidence should be avoided by a confidentiality order under rule 151(1).
[18] In Hunter v. Canada (Consumer and Corporate Affairs)(C.A.), [1991] 3 F.C. 186, Décary J.A. observed that section 47 is poorly phrased and ambiguous (at pages 201 and 205). I agree. Nonetheless, it is apparent that section 47 is intended to protect against unintended disclosure until the Court makes a substantive ruling on the question of confidentiality. As such, the section must apply not only to the record that is the subject of the section 41 or 42 application but to other material or information which, if disclosed in the course of proceedings, would disclose some or all of the contents of the record itself.
[19] The appellant strenuously argues that openness of the Court's process is a fundamental principle. Of course, that argument is well justified as a matter of public interest. It is a fundamental principle of procedural fairness that the Court should not see material from one party to the exclusion of another. However, as with all general principles, there are exceptions. Where the issue is whether records are to be kept confidential or disclosed, the nature of the subject matter of the Court's inquiry requires that the Court's process not result in disclosure and pre-empt the Court's substantive ruling on the issue (see Hunter, supra, at 202). That is the reason for section 47 of the Act.
[20] The motions judge granted the Minister's motion and ordered that the confidential affidavits be filed in their entirety. He seems to have deferred the question of whether the appellant should be allowed access to some or all of the confidential affidavits to the judge hearing the section 41 applications. At paragraph 15, he stated:
The purpose of allowing the respondent's materials to be filed confidentially at this point is to ensure that the documents are available to the judge hearing the application. The applications judge will be in the best position to determine if an exception should be granted to allow Mr. Blank access to all or some of this material.
[21] Leaving the question of disclosure to the judge hearing the merits of the section 41 applications defers any order for disclosure to the time of the hearing when it will be too late for the appellant to make use of whatever information might be ordered disclosed. The motion before the judge was brought under subsection 47(1) and rules 151 and 152. Accordingly, he was required to determine what precautions were necessary, including the extent to which material should be filed confidentially, to avoid disclosure of information or other material on the basis of which the government would be authorized to refuse disclosure of records requested under the Access Act.
[22] The appeal should be allowed with costs and the matter remitted to the motions judge to make the determination required under subsection 47(1) and rule 151.
[23] The appellant is self-represented. Pursuant to rule 152, the Minister has advised the Court that should the appellant retain counsel, and subject to a proper undertaking by counsel, the Minister is prepared to disclose to counsel the confidential affidavits except for any material that he considers to be confidential pursuant to solicitor-client privilege. That option remains open to the appellant.
"Marshall Rothstein
J.A.
"I agree
A.M. Linden J.A."
"I agree
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-84-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHELDON BLANK v. THE MINISTER OF
JUSTICE
PLACE OF HEARING: WINNIPEG, MANITOBA
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 18, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LINDEN J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: DECEMBER 5, 2005
APPEARANCES:
| ON HIS OWN BEHALF |
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT