ACCESS TO INFORMATION |
Viandes du Breton Inc. v. Canada (Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food)
T-1819-98
Nadon J.
15/12/00
14 pp.
Application for review of defendant's decision authorizing disclosure of inspection reports concerning food or agri-food establishments in response to access-to-information request submitted to Canadian Food Inspection Agency--Applicant contending disclosure of documents should have been denied on grounds disclosure might cause it considerable financial loss or loss of profits or might undermine its competi-tiveness or might hamper ongoing contract negotiations: s. 20(1)(c), (d)--Application dismissed--Disclosure of documents rule; onus on party objecting to disclosure to show otherwise--Applicant must therefore show reasonable expectation of probable harm--Not enough to give account of possible harm or to speculate as to probability of harm in negotiations--Application of principles established in Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Prime Minister), [1993] 1 F.C. 427 (T.D.)--Federal Court has on several occasions ordered disclosure of reports on similar establishments--Moreover, Department's decision in present matter challenged in Coopérative fédérée du Québec (carrying on business under the name of Aliments Flamingo) v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food) (2000), 5 C.P.R. (4th) 344 (F.C.T.D.)--Judge therein dismissed application for review on grounds subject inspection reports not recent and that while they may have been unfavourable to persons to whom they pertained, applicants did not show disclosure might give rise to reasonable probability of financial losses for them or might undermine their competitiveness--In case at bar, consequences referred to by applicant seem to be rooted in speculation rather than results of bona fide studies or analyses--Reports deal with condition of establishment in 1997, not quality of product--Harm associated with disclosure of reports mitigated by passage of time between inspection and disclosure of report and by fact documents pertaining to inspection reports indicate in several places applicant took or required to take corrective measures as result of inspection--Moreover, disclosure accompanied, as was case in Aliments Flamingo, by explanatory note from the Department intended to eliminate any doubt as to nature of reports in question and indicating how they should be interpreted--Evidence put forward by applicant therefore not supporting finding of reasonable expectation of probable harm, financial or otherwise, that would warrant exemption from general rule of disclosure of documents--With regard to media coverage, Judge's ruling in Aliments Flamingo applying here as well: one cannot assume coverage will be unfair or negative--Exceptions permitted by Act, s. 20(1)(c), (d) do not apply herein--Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, s. 20(1)(c), (d).