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

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