[1] On February 23, 2000, the appellant submitted a request to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, pursuant to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, for disclosure of all personal information that the RCMP may have about his activities. He was advised by letter dated April 7, 2000 that the RCMP, relying on subsection 16(2) of the Privacy Act, would not confirm or deny the existence of the requested personal information about the appellant, but that if such information did exist, it would be entirely exempt from disclosure by virtue of paragraph 22(1)(a). The Privacy Commissioner informed the appellant as follows:

Subsection 16(2) states that a government institution is not required to reveal whether personal information exists. Subsection 16(1) states that the institution must, however, indicate the sections of the Act upon which refusal of such information "could reasonably be expected to be based" if it did exist. Although the Act also prohibits me from either confirming or denying the existence of requested records, I have reviewed the matter and am satisfied that if such information does exist, it could reasonably be expected to be exempted by subparagraph 22(1)(a)(I) of the Privacy Act. I am further satisfied that the RCMP has properly exercised the discretion afforded it by virtue of subsection 16(2).

[2] The appellant applied under section 41of the Privacy Act for judicial review of the decision of the RCMP. The Federal Court, in an order dated February 10, 2005, dismissed his application (2004 FC 216). This is an appeal of that decision.

[3] Having reviewed all of the material in the appeal books, including the confidential affidavits that were before the Judge, we can find no error in the conclusion of the Judge that the decision set out in the letter of April 7, 2000 was properly made and was authorized by the provisions of the Privacy Act. Notwithstanding the able submissions of counsel for the appellant, we prefer to express no opinion on whether the Judge erred in disregarding the Jones affidavit, as it would not affect our assessment of the merits of the decision. For these reasons, this appeal will be dismissed with costs.

"Karen R. Sharlow"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-111-05

STYLE OF CAUSE: ELVIO DEL ZOTTO

Appellant

and

SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 26, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT: (LINDEN, NADON, SHARLOW JJ.A.)

DELIVERED FROM THE

BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Robert W. Calderwood FOR THE APPELLANT

Suzanne Duncan FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

DELZOTTO, ZORZI LLP

Barristers & Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are here

Del Zotto v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FCA 349

Citations2005 FCA 349

Case tabs

Citations
2005 FCA 349