Mislan v. M.N.R.
T-2790-96
Rothstein J.
22/5/98
8 pp.
Application for disclosure of expurgated portions of report arising out of sexual harassment complaint against applicant-Information at issue personal information about both applicant and another individual-Discretionary power granted to head of government institution to refuse to disclose information about another individual paramount to applicant's right to personal information about himself-In Kelly v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1992), 6 Admin. L.R. (2d) 54 (F.C.T.D.); affd (1993), 13 Admin. L.R. (2d) 304 (F.C.A.), Strayer J. stating primary purpose of Privacy Act to protect privacy, and right of access given to any person to own data must be exercised as much as possible so as to respect right of others to privacy of data-Under s. 12(1), individual's right to access personal information "subject to this Act"-Right not absolute, but subject to numerous exceptions-Under s. 26, right of person making the request under s. 12(1) to access own personal information subject to exercise of discretion by head of government institution not to disclose information about another person-When information in question about both person making request and another person, discretion to refuse disclosure by head of government institution paramount to right of person making request for own personal information-In Kelly v. Canada, Strayer J. outlining procedure for such cases: head of institution must (1) make factual determination as to whether material within description of material potentially subject to being withheld from disclosure; (2) decide whether that material should nevertheless be disclosed-Court satisfied information at issue personal information about applicant and another-Strayer J. providing following guidance as to second type of decision: in reviewing such purely discretionary decision, Court should not attempt to exercise discretion de novo, but should look at document in question and surrounding circumstances and simply consider whether discretion appearing to have been exercised in good faith and for some reason rationally connected to purpose for which discretion granted-Discretion exercised for reason rationally connected to purpose for which granted-Information personal information about both applicant and another individual and exercise of such discretion contemplated by ss. 26, 8(2)(a)-No basis for Court to interfere with exercise of discretion by head of government institution-Application dismissed-Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 8(1),(2), 12(1), 26.