Date: 20000524
Docket: T-732-00
BETWEEN:
MARY GLINKA
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES A.S.P.
[1] By the motion before me, the Respondent seeks to quash [sic] the application for judicial review on the grounds that relief is not available against the Privacy Commissioner.
[2] It appears the Applicant complained to the Privacy Commissioner that her address had been disclosed to all C.I.C. employees in the Ontario region and that certain information had not been supplied to her by C.I.C. The Privacy Commissioner explained the alleged address disclosure and also noted that his questions as to what specifically was requested by way of information from C.I.C. had not been answered. He had therefore, concluded that the Applicant had received all she requested from C.I.C.
[3] Section 41 of the Privacy Act allows the judicial review of a refusal of access to personal information. The Privacy Commissioner in his letter to the Applicant pointed out that the Minister should be named as Respondent in any such judicial review application. The Minister was in fact named in the style of cause, but, what the Applicant seeks is that the decision of the Privacy Commissioner be quashed and also seeks "known e-mail transmissions, a letter of apology and $100.00 costs". Presumably, the e-mail transmission and letter of apology are required from the Minister.
[4] It is quite plain that this Court has no jurisdiction to quash a decision of the Privacy Commissioner or to order a letter of apology. If sought with clarity, the Court would have jurisdiction to order production of personal information which had been requested and when refused had been the subject of a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
[5] Therefore, notice of the application will be struck out with leave to seek judicial review within 30 days of any decision of the Minister with respect to e-mail transmissions which had previously been refused and was the subject of a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
ORDER
[6] The notice of application is struck out with leave to file a further application within 30 days seeking judicial review of any decision of the Minister with respect to e-mail transmissions which had previously been refused and was the subject of a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
"Peter A. K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
May 24, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MARY GLINKA |
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
| DATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 |
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Mary Glinka
For the Applicant, on her own behalf
Claire A. H. le Riche
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mary Glinka
General Delivery
Feversham, Ontario
N0C 1C0
For the Applicant, on her own behalf
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000524
Docket: T-732-00
Between:
MARY GLINKA
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
AND ORDER
Email this Content