Canada ( Information Commissioner ) v. Canada ( Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board )
T-908-97 / T-911-97 / T-2052-97
Richard J.
24/12/97
26 pp.
Applications under Access to Information Act (T-908-97, T-911-97) and under Privacy Act (T-2052-97) to set aside decision of Chairperson of Immigration and Refugee Board to exempt from disclosure portions of report prepared by Board, notes containing information obtained from employees of Board in preparation of report-Vancouver lawyer (Catherine Bruce) mandated to produce report of Board on results of fact-finding exercise on various matters-Prior to conducting individual interviews with Board employees, Ms. Bruce informed them she would keep notes of interview in strict confidence, Board would only receive report-Whether records withheld contain information, disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to conduct of lawful investigations within meaning of Access to Information Act, s. 16(1)(c)-Whether personal information withheld from Bruce report and interview notes containing information, disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to conduct of lawful investigations within meaning of Privacy Act, s. 22(1)(b)-Burden rests upon head of government institution concerned to establish authorization to refuse to disclose record requested-Access to Information Act guided by purposive clause, s. 2(1)-Since Act, s. 4(1) confers general right of access, exemptions must be specific, limited-Parliament intended exemptions to be interpreted strictly-To achieve purpose of Act, one must choose interpretation that least infringes on public's right of access-Head of government institution must demonstrate reasonable expectation of probable harm from disclosure to conduct of lawful investigations-Clear, direct link required between disclosure of specific information, harm alleged-No evidence showing disclosure of portions of Bruce report or interview notes containing information obtained from Board employees in preparation of report would reasonably be injurious to conduct of specific lawful investigation undertaken or about to be undertaken-Head of government institution has not clearly, directly demonstrated case to refuse disclosure-Perceived injury, prejudice speculative-No evidence of probable harm to any investigation undertaken or about to be undertaken-Applications allowed-Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, ss. 2(1), 4, 16-Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, s. 22.