Date: 20000112
Docket: A-692-97
A-693-97
A-726-97
(T-1928-96)
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
ROBERTSON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
BONNIE PETZINGER
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
and MICHEL DRAPEAU
Respondents
(Respondents)
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
(Applicant)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, January 12, 2000
Judgment delivered Orally from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Wednesday, January 12, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: EVANS J.A
Date: 20000112
Docket: A-692-97
A-693-97
A-726-97
(T-1928-96)
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
ROBERTSON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF an investigation conducted by the Information Commissioner of Canada (the "Commissioner") purportedly pursuant to section 32 to 37, inclusive of the Access to Information Act R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 (the "Act"), with respect to a complaint made by Michel Drapeau purportedly pursuant to paragraph 30(1)((f ) of the Act against Bonnie Petzinger and thereby against the Department of National Defence
IN THE MATTER OF a report of findings and recommendation (the "report") dated August 16, 1996, issued by the Commissioner purportedly pursuant to section 37 of the Act and received by the Deputy Minister of National Defence on August 18, 1996
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to section 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 as amended for the following relief: a) a declaration against Michel Drapeau; b) a certiorari to set aside and quash the report; c) a prohibition and/or, in the alternative, an injunction to enjoin the Commissioner from proceeding further with his report, to deliver same or communicate the contents thereof to the public including to Michel Drapeau; d) pursuant to section 18.2 and paragraph 50(1)(b) of the Federal Court Act a stay of the proceedings of the Commissioner pending the outcome of the within proceedings; e) in the event the Commissioner has already communicated the contents of his report and recommendation, an injunction as against Michel Drapeau from making any use of the contents of the said report, to directly or indirectly communicate or disseminate its contents and/or to comment on said contents in any manner, form or forum
BETWEEN:
BONNIE PETZINGER
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
and MICHEL DRAPEAU
Respondents
(Respondents)
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
(Applicant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on
Wednesday, January 12, 2000)
EVANS J.A.
In our opinion the reasons of the learned Motions Judge reveal no error. We are not satisfied that, in the exercise of his discretion to dismiss the application for judicial review summarily on the respondents" motion, the Motions Judge ignored relevant factors or weighed them so inappropriately as to attract the intervention of this Court.
A person who seeks judicial redress on the ground of procedural fairness must normally establish that her or his interests have been adversely affected by the administrative action that is being impugned. The finding in the Information Commissioner"s report that Ms. Petzinger"s involvement in the dismissal of Mr. Drapeau gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that she might be biased in the handling of his information requests does not prejudice her reputation. Indeed, the report specifically rejected the complaints of professional impropriety that Mr. Drapeau had made against her.
It would seem clear that Ms. Petzinger has suffered no injury which the relief that she seeks in her application for judicial review could redress, particularly in view of the Information Commissioner"s limited legal power to make non-binding recommendations, which the Department of National Defence in any event rejected.
However, we would not wish to commit ourselves to the proposition that there are no circumstances in which the Information Commissioner may be required by the duty of fairness to afford to those adversely affected by his reports procedural rights over and beyond those expressly prescribed in the Access to Information Act.
For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed with one set of costs.
"John M. Evans"
J.A. .
Email this Content