[2013] 1 F.C.R. D-10
Access to information
Judicial reviews under Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, s. 42 for judicial review of respondents’ refusal to disclose protocol entitled “Principles to Implement Legal Advice on the Listing and Inspection of RCMP Documents in Civil Litigation” (Protocol)—Requests made to Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Department of Justice (DOJ) for disclosure of Protocol in accordance with Act—Both respondents refusing disclosure, claiming exemptions under Act, ss. 21(1)(a), 23—These sections providing government institutions discretion to refuse to disclose any record containing information subject to solicitor-client privilege or any record containing information, advice or recommendations developed by or for government institution—Whether Protocol containing information subject to solicitor-client privilege or advice or recommendations developed by or for government institution—Tripartite test from Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 applied to Protocol—Protocol failing to meet second branch thereof since Protocol not constituting communication involving seeking or provision of legal advice—Protocol negotiated; signed by both putative lawyer (DOJ), putative client (RCMP)—On face, Protocol in no way concerned with seeking or provision of legal advice, not containing any advice—Rather, constituting agreement drafted in mandatory language, purporting to cast obligations on both DOJ, RCMP—Fact Protocol marked “Confidential, Solicitor-Client Privileged” prior to signing not in any way determinative of whether Protocol constituting privileged communication—Protocol likewise not representing advice given to RCMP; therefore, not protected from disclosure under Act, s. 21(1)(a)—Protocol lacking hallmark of advice in that, contrary to containing advice on how to deal with documents in question, constituting agreement between DOJ, RCMP, setting out respective roles, responsibilities thereof—Thus, disclosure would in no way limit free, frank flow of information essential to decision-making process in government, would not harm interests exemption in Act, s. 21(1)(a) designed to protect—Applications allowed.
Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (T-146-11, T-147-11, 2012 FC 877, Gleason J., judgment dated July 12, 2012, 20 pp.)