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

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-05-31
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 624
File numbers
T-582-01
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Federal Court Reports Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner) (T.D.) [2002] 3 F.C. 656
Date: 20020531
Docket: T-582-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 624
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and BRUCE HARTLEY
Applicants
and
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
McKEOWN J.
[1] The applicants have brought a motion for an order that the respondent provide counsel for the applicants with the transcripts of certain proceedings before the Information Commissioner's delegate, which I had ordered to be filed with the Court on a confidential basis.
[2] My Order of February 2, 2002 stated among other things:
3. The transcripts of the proceedings before the Information Commissioner's delegate be filed on a confidential basis on the judicial review applications in the following four groups only: the Confidentiality Order Applications, the Propriety of Questions Applications, the Compliance with Subpoena Application, and the ss. 37/38 Applications.
[3] In my reasons on the motion brought by the respondent to strike the Attorney General as a party and to remove applicants' counsel from the record, at paragraph 36 I stated:
Rules 151 and 152 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 provide for the Court to make Orders requiring material to be filed to be treated as confidential. Where such an Order is made, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, only a solicitor of record or a solicitor assisting in the proceeding who is not a party, is entitled to have access to the confidential material.
[4] My Reasons and Order implied that the transcripts should be supplied to the Court and to counsel only. I agree with counsel for the applicant that my Order requires, as contemplated by Rule 152, that the transcripts should be provided on a confidential basis to counsel for the applicants only and not to the clients. Mr. Doody has already filed an undertaking: (1) not to disclose the contents of the transcripts of the proceedings before the Information Commissioner's delegate referred to in my Order, except to solicitors assisting in the proceedings or to the Court in the course of argument; (2) he would not permit those transcripts to be reproduced in whole or in part; (3) he would destroy the material and any notes on its contents and file a certificate of their destruction or deliver the material and notes as ordered by the Court, when the material and notes were no longer required for the proceeding or he ceased to be solicitor of record.
[5] The motion is granted.
[6] It is ordered that the respondent give to Peter K. Doody the transcripts of the proceedings before J. Alan Leadbeater, the delegate of the Information Commissioner, on March 30, April 11, April 30, April 25, April 26, May 15, June 12 and June 21, 2001, during which submissions were made on behalf of and evidence was heard from one or more of Bruce Hartley, Meribeth Morris, Randy Mylyk, Emechete Onuoha, Jean Pelletier, the Honourable Art Eggleton, Mel Cappe, and Sue Ronald.
[7] The respondent shall pay to the applicant the costs of this motion.
"W.P. McKeown"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 31, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-582-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: The Attorney General of Canada and Bruce Hartley v
The Information Commissioner of Canada
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MCKEOWN
DATED: May 31, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
David W. Scott, Q.C.
Peter K. DoodyFor the Applicant
Daniel Brunet
Sonia HanFor the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Ottawa, OntarioFor the Applicant
Daniel Brunet
Ottawa, OntarioFor the Respondent