ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Appeal from Federal Court’s dismissal of appellant’s application under Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, s. 44, holding disputed items not “confidential information” ([2003] 4 F.C.R. 901)—Four statements found in minutes of meeting between SNC employees, CIDA officials in dispute—Appellant relied on Act, ss. 20(1)(b), (c), 19 to argue items should not be disclosed—Three questions to be considered in making determination as to whether information is confidential, examined—No palpable, overriding error in dismissal of application so far as based on s. 20(1)(b), conclusion evidence too speculative to meet test in s. 20(1)(c)—But Federal Court not having benefit of H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 441, when determined s. 19 cannot be invoked in s. 44 application—Disputed information outside definition of “personal information” in Privacy Act, s. 3 because of exemption in s. 3(k)—Appeal dismissed.
SNC Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister for International Co-operation) (A-309-03, 2007 FCA 397, Sharlow J.A., judgment dated 12/12/07, 7 pp.)