Date: 19990305
Docket: T-1023-98
BETWEEN:
FATHER ALBERTO ARAUJO CUNHA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, CONNNIE-LEE FOND,
PRIVACY CONSULTANT, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.:
[1] This is an application by the applicant for a declaration that his statutory rights were infringed. The application originally contained requests for additional remedies, all of which have been dropped. The statutory right in issue is that of a person who makes a request under the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, for personal information held on government files to receive a response within 30 days or to be given a notice that an extension of time (for a maximum of 30 days) is needed to respond. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act establish these time limits.1
[2] The applicant, through his counsel, made a request dated January 13, 1998, for certain personal information from Revenue Canada. A response was sent dated January 15, 1998, stating that a reply to that request would be sent as soon as possible. On March 3, 1998, and on May 14, 1998, since no response had been received, counsel sent follow-up letters asking for a reply to the request. None was received. In the May letter counsel advised Revenue Canada that if a response was not received in a timely fashion he would commence court proceedings to require that a response be given. (There is evidence indicating that the applicant had attempted to obtain the information he was seeking as early as April 1997, but his initial requests had been sent to the local Revenue Canada office, instead of the headquarters in Ottawa.) In any event, on May 21, 1998, an application in this Court was filed. On June 2, 1998, as a result of the filing of that application, the applicant's request was given priority over other requests with which Revenue Canada was dealing, and the requested documents were sent to the applicant's counsel on July 8, 1998.
[3] Counsel for the respondent argues that the issue is now moot since the documents have been provided to the applicant, and, in any event, this Court has no jurisdicition because the applicant made no complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. It is argued that it is only after such a complaint has been made, and a refusal received, that an application can be made to this Court. Section 41 of the Privacy Act provides:
41. Any individual who has been refused access to personal information requested under subsection 12(1) may, if a complaint has been made to the Privacy Commissioner in respect of the refusal, apply to the Court for a review of the matter within forty-five days after the time the results of an
41. L'individu qui s'est vu refuser communication de renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) et qui a déposé ou fait déposer une plainte à ce sujet devant le Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée peut, dans un délai de quarante-cinq jours suivant le compte rendu investigation of the complaint by the Privacy Commissioner are reported to the complainant under subsection 35(2) or within such further time as the Court may, either before or after the expiration of those forty-five days, fix or allow.
du Commissaire prévu au paragraphe 35(2), exercer un recours en révision de la décision de refus devant la Cour. La Cour peut, avant ou après l'expiration du délai, le proroger ou en autoriser la prorogation.
[4] Counsel for the applicant argues that all the remedies requiring disclosure of the documents are now moot and the request for a declaration should therefore be refused. What is being sought is a declaration that a breach of a statutory right occurred. This is being sought because it appears that there is no mechanism whereby the Privacy Commissioner can require compliance with the 30 day time limit (extended to 60 days when a section 15 notice is given), and it appears that Parliament's intention to make information available in a timely fashion is being routinely thwarted. The evidence indicates that on average Revenue Canada does not respond to one of these requests until after 200 days. This allegedly has decreased more recently to approximately 150 days. (This applicant's request took approximately 6 months to process and it was given priority because of the application that had been filed with this Court.) Counsel asks for a declaration that his client's statutory right was breached and for his costs of this action in order, to send a message to those responsible for the delays that the intention of Parliament is being thwarted.
[5] I turn then to the question of this Court's jurisdiction. Section 41 of the Privacy Act, set out above, provides for an application to the Court "if a complaint has been made to the Privacy Commissioner." Counsel for the respondent argues that these provisions make it clear that it is not intended that an applicant can apply to the Court for relief when he or she has not first filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. Counsel for the applicant argues, to the contrary, that there is no mechanism provided for in the Privacy Act to deal with the situation when a Department simply does not respond to a request as required by sections 14 -16 of the Act.
[6] Subsection 16(3) states that a failure to reply to a request in accordance with the time limits provided for in the Act is a "deemed" refusal:
(3) Where the head of a government institution fails to give access to any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) within the time limits set out in this Act, the head of the institution shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have refused to give access.
(3) Le défaut de communication de renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) dans les délais prévus par la présente loi vaut décision de refus de communication.
[7] Section 29 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be made to the Privacy Commissioner. A deemed refusal under subsection 16(3) is not one of the specifically listed circumstances. The specifically listed circumstances include an actual refusal under subsection 12(1), or an alleged unreasonable extension of time under section 15, but not a deemed refusal pursuant to subsection 16(3).
[8] The full text of subsection 29(1) is:
29. (1) Subject to this Act, the Privacy Commissioner shall receive and investigate complaints
29. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, le Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée reçoit les plaintes et fait enquête sur les plaintes :
| (a) from individuals who allege that personal information about themselves held by a government institution has been used or disclosed otherwise than in accordance with section 7 or 8; |
| a) déposées par des individus qui prétendent que des renseignements personnels les concernant et détenus par une institution fédérale ont été utilisés ou communiqués contrairement aux articles 7 ou 8; |
| (b) from individuals who have been refused access to personal information requested under subsection 12(1); |
| b) déposées par des individus qui se sont vu refuser la communication de renseignements personnels, demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1); |
| (c) from individuals who allege that they are not being accorded the rights to which they are entitled under subsection 12(2) or that corrections of personal information requested under paragraph 12(2)(a) are being refused without justification; |
| c) déposées par des individus qui se prétendent lésés des droits que leur accorde le paragraphe 12(2) ou qui considèrent comme non fondé le refus d'effectuer les corrections demandées en vertu de l'alinéa 12(2)a); |
| (d) from individuals who have requested access to personal information in respect of which a time limit has been extended pursuant to section 15 where they consider the extension unreasonable; |
| d) déposées par des individus qui ont demandé des renseignements personnels dont les délais de communication ont été prorogés en vertu de l'article 15 et qui considèrent la prorogation comme abusive; |
| (e) from individuals who have not been given access to personal information in the official language requested by the individuals under subsection 17(2); |
| e) déposées par des individus qui n'ont pas reçu communication de renseignements personnels dans la langue officielle qu'ils ont demandée en vertu du paragraphe 17(2); |
| (e.1) from individuals who have not been given access to personal information in an alternative format pursuant to a request made under subsection 17(3); |
| e.1) déposées par des individus qui n'ont pas reçu communication des renseignements personnels sur un support de substitution en application du paragraphe 17(3); |
| (f) from individuals who have been required to pay a fee that they consider inappropriate; |
| f) déposées par des individus qui considèrent comme contre-indiqué le versement exigé en vertu des règlements; |
| (g) in respect of the index referred to in subsection 11(1); or |
| g) portant sur le répertoire visé au paragraphe 11(1); |
| (h) in respect of any other matter relating to |
| h) portant sur toute autre question relative à : |
| (i) the collection, retention or disposal of personal information by a government institution, |
| (ii) the use or disclosure of personal information under the control of a government institution, or |
| (iii) requesting or obtaining access under subsection 12(1) to personal information. [Emphasis added.] |
| (i) la collecte, la conservation ou le retrait par une institution fédérale des renseignements personnels, |
| (ii) l'usage ou la communication des renseignements personnels qui relèvent d'une institution fédérale, |
| (iii) la demande ou l'obtention de renseignements personnels en vertu du paragraphe 12(1). [Les italiques ne figurent pas dans l'original.] |
[9] While there is no specific reference in subsection 29(1) to deemed refusals pursuant to 16(3), I am persuaded that a complaint with respect thereto falls within subparagraph 29(1)(h)(i). This interpretation is consonant with the scheme of the Privacy Act and its context as a whole. Actual refusals and breaches of the required time limits, as well as breaches of the many other sections are encompassed in subsection 29(1). This evidences an intention to have government department responses to requests, including deemed refusals, reviewed first by the Privacy Commissioner before they may become the subject of a court proceeding. I, somewhat reluctantly, therefore, must conclude that counsel for the respondents' argument is correct and that the Act contemplates complaints being made, first, to the Privacy Commissioner, and only after a refusal is received from him or her, to this Court. The description of the right of review conferred by section 41 makes this plain. I therefore conclude that the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the declaration that is sought.
[10] With respect to costs, each party shall be left to bear its own. Although the obtaining of the documents that were requested became moot after July 8, 1998, and Revenue Canada officials did apologize to the applicant for the delay, it is clear that there is an on-going problem with the manner in which requests are processed (or rather left unprocessed for extensive periods of time). The applicant sought to call attention to this fact, and to obtain some sort of remedy not only for his own benefit but for the benefit of all those requesting information. While I find that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant the remedy
sought, the circumstances are such that the applicant should not have costs awarded against him. An order will issue accordingly.
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 5, 1999
__________________
1
14. Where access to personal information is requested under subsection 12(1), the head of the government institution to which the request is made shall, subject to section 15, within thirty days after the request is received, (a) give written notice to the individual who made the request as to whether or not access to the information or a part thereof will be given; and (b) if access is to be given, give the individual who made the request access to the information or the part thereof.
15. The head of a government institution may extend the time limit set out in section 14 in respect of a request for (a) a maximum of thirty days if (i) meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution, or (ii) consultations are necessary to comply with the request that cannot reasonably be completed within the original time limit, or (b) such period of time as is reasonable, if additional time is necessary for translation purposes or for the purposes of converting the personal information into an alternative format,by giving notice of the extension and the length of the extension to the individual who made the request within thirty days after the request is received, which notice shall contain a statement that the individual has a right to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner about the extension. |
14. Le responsable de l'institution fédérale à qui est faite une demande de communication de renseignements personnels en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) est tenu, dans les trente jours suivant sa réception, sous réserve de l'article 15 : a) d'aviser par écrit la personne qui a fait la demande de ce qu'il sera donné ou non communication totale ou partielle des renseignements personnels; b) le cas échéant, de procéder à la communication.
15. Le responsable d'une institution fédérale peut proroger le délai mentionné à l'article 14 : a) d'une période maximale de trente jours dans les cas où: (i) l'observation du délai entraverait de façon sérieuse le fonctionnement de l'institution, (ii) les consultations nécessaires pour donner suite à la demande rendraient pratiquement impossible l'observation du délai; b) d'une période qui peut se justifier dans les cas de traduction ou dans les cas de transfert sur support de substitution.Dans l'un ou l'autre de ces cas, le responsable de l'institution fédérale envoie à la personne qui a fait la demande, dans les trente jours suivant sa réception, un avis de prorogation de délai en lui faisant part de nouveau délai ainsi que de son droit de déposer une plainte à ce propos auprès du Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée. |
Email this Content