Canada (Cultural Property Export Review Board) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2002 FCA 37

Date: 20020125

Docket: A-633-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 37

PRESENT:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROTHSTEIN

BETWEEN:

                                  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CANADIAN CULTURAL

                                              PROPERTY EXPORT REVIEW BOARD

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                 and

                                THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                       Dealt with in writing and without appearance of parties

                                    Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 25, 2002.

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                       ROTHSTEIN J.A.

Date: 20020125

Docket: A-633-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 37

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROTHSTEIN           

BETWEEN:

                                  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CANADIAN CULTURAL

                                              PROPERTY EXPORT REVIEW BOARD

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                 and

                                THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

[1]                 This is a motion to stay, pending appeal, the Amended Order of Rouleau J. dated October 9, 2001 requiring disclosure of information.

[2]                 The information at issue relates to the issuance of a certificate by the appellant, in connection with a donation made by Mel Lastman of archival records to the former City of North York. Upon application under the Access to Information Act by the Information Commissioner, Rouleau J. ordered disclosure of the information.

[3]                 It is not necessary to consider the questions of serious issue and balance of convenience as I find that the appellant has not established that he will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.

[4]                 Rouleau J. found that the information, which he ordered be disclosed, had been made public by Mr. Lastman. The appellant does not dispute this finding.

[5]                 Nonetheless, the appellant argues that disclosure pursuant to Rouleau J.'s order risks undermining the public policy objective of preserving cultural property through tax incentives designed to generate donations of such property to designated institutions and public authorities. It is suggested potential donors would be dissuaded from making donations for reasons of personal privacy and security, particularly that they could be concerned that the confidentiality of their donations could not be guaranteed and that such information would be disclosed routinely or automatically.

[6]                 Whatever may be the merits of the appellant's irreparable harm arguments in the case of confidential information, they do not apply to the unusual facts here. Mr. Lastman made the information public. The appellant's arguments do not establish irreparable harm when the information is already public.

[7]                 It is also argued that disclosure may make the appeal moot and important questions of law may not be determined by the Court.

[8]                 Significantly, the appellant is unable to argue, as he might if the information were not public, that refusal to grant the stay would take away the practical effect of a successful appeal. Rather, the argument is just that certain questions of law might not be decided. However, the Court, if it chooses to exercise its discretion to do so, may decide to hear the appeal in any event. In any event, the issue may arise again in a subsequent appeal. In the circumstances here, there is no irreparable harm if this particular appeal is rendered moot and the Court decides not to hear and decide it.

[9]                 The motion seeking a stay of the Amended Order of Rouleau J. dated October 9, 2001, is dismissed. Should the respondent seek costs, he may, if the amount of costs cannot be agreed, serve and file a memorandum not exceeding 2 pages, double spaced, within 7 days of the date of this order, setting out a fixed sum for fees and disbursements with a very brief explanation of the calculations. The appellant's response should also not exceed 2 pages, double spaced, shall set out the fixed amount, if any, he considers appropriate, and a brief explanation of the calculation or why costs should not be ordered. If no submissions are received from the respondent within the stipulated time, there shall be no award of costs.

                                                                                                                                      "Marshall Rothstein"      

                                                                                                                                                                  J.A.