Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PRIVACY

Maydak v. Canada (Solicitor General)

T-73-04

2004 FC 1171, Rouleau J.

24/8/04

9 pp.

Application under Privacy Act, s. 41 for access to information in RCMP, Interpol records--U.S.A. sought applicant's extradition to prosecute for supervised release violation--Authority to Proceed against applicant pursuant to Extradition Act, s. 15 issued on behalf of Minister of Justice-- RCMP providing some, withholding other information under Privacy Act, ss. 22(1)(a)--Applicant complained to Privacy Commissioner--Complaint found not well-founded as information less than 20 years old, obtained in course of investigation by investigative body--Undisclosed documents filed under seal for purpose of this judicial review pursuant to prothonotary's order--Applicant's argument: RCMP did not conduct "investigation" but only monitored extradition proceedings--In alternative, if investigation conducted, was not for crime detection, prevention, or enforcement of Canadian law, as required by s. 22(1)(a)--As to Act, s. 19 exception, applicant says inapplicable, U.S.A. not having given information "in confidence" as extradition was matter of public record--Argued under s. 22(1)(b) RCMP had to show disclosure injurious to enforcement of law, and under s. 26, could redact names of third parties--Solicitor General's argument: exempted material pertains to investigation of application regarding Extradition Act enforcement--Case law holds question whether record within Privacy Act exemption to be reviewed according to correctness standard--Upon review of file, clear RCMP merely received information from Justice Canada that U.S.A. sought applicant for supervised release violation, having submitted extradition request--Only actions taken involved entering applicant's name on Canadian police database, communicating by e-mail with Justice re: status of extradition proceedings--Not constituting investigation within meaning of statute--No investigatory action undertaken--Commissioner erred, Court intervention warranted--As impugned decision based entirely on s. 22(1)(a), not for Court to consider other statutory exemption provisions--In any event, none of other exemptions appear applicable--One possible exception: letter from FBI to RCMP containing name of third party--Document to be given applicant with one paragraph redacted--Application granted --Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 19, 22, 26, 41-- Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, s. 15(1).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.