PRIVACY
Appeal from Federal Court decision (2004 FC 1171) RCMP’s refusal to disclose to respondent personal information, sought under Privacy Act, s. 12(1), could not be justified under Act, s. 22(1)(a) (refusal permitted where personal information obtained “in the course of lawful investigations”)—Appeal allowed—Information herein obtained by RCMP for specific purpose of giving effect to extradition proceedings (for purpose, inter alia, of locating, arresting respondent) commenced by Department of Justice against respondent, at request of U.S.A.—Federal Court concluded no investigation had taken place as only actions taken by RCMP involved placing, subsequently removing, applicant’s name in CPIC (Canadian police database), communicating by e-mail with Department of Justice relating to status of extradition proceedings—Importance of informa-tion obtained by RCMP irrelevant to determination to be made under Act, s. 22(1)(a); if obtained under circumstances described therein, exemption to disclosure applicable— Ordinary meaning of words “investigation,” “investigate,” broad enough to encompass RCMP’s activities in obtaining information herein—“Investigation” must be given broad meaning: Lavigne v. Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773—RCMP’s activities (monitoring respondent’s progress throughout extradition process, gathering information regarding process) constituting investigation within meaning of Act, s. 22(1)(a)—Judge clearly wrong to conclude information not obtained in course of investigation—Respondent’s judicial review application should be dismissed—Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 12(1) (as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 269), 22(1)(a).
Maydak v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (A-518-04, 2005 FCA 186, Nadon J.A., judgment dated 19/5/05, 8 pp.)