Volume IV

Issue : 9: May 5, 2006

• Penalties Imposed for Cyberspace Bullying
• European Union Expected to Adopt Anti Piracy Anti Counterfeiting Legislation
• BitTorrent User Hit With $35,000 Default Judgment
• Judge Bars Civil Servant from being Fired for Web Surfing
• U.S. Supreme Court Seeks Opinion of Justice Department in Microsoft Appeal
• EBay User Sentenced to Prison for Threats against eBay Executives
• Increased Reward for Employees Who Report Illegal Software Use
• Jury Awards Memory Chip Designer Rambus $306.5m (U.S.) in Patent Verdict
• Supreme Court of Canada Affirms the Paramount Importance of Privacy

Home > Volume IV > Issue 9: May 5, 2006 > Supreme Court of Canada Affirms the Paramount Importance of Privacy

Supreme Court of Canada Affirms the Paramount Importance of Privacy

In June 2000, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“CFIA”) received a request under the Access to Information Act (“Act”) for access to certain records pertaining to Heinz. Pursuant to sections 27 and 28 of the Act, the CFIA requested that Heinz make representations as to why a document should not be disclosed after a determination that some of the requested information may contain confidential business. After review, the CFIA concluded that the records should be disclosed. Thereafter, Heinz commenced a judicial review proceeding pursuant to section 44 of the Act, arguing that certain records could not be disclosed as the exemptions enunciated in the Act concerning confidential business information (section 20(1)) and personal information related to individuals (section 19(1)), precluded such disclosure.

In the review proceeding, it was argued by the Attorney General that Heinz could not raise any exemption other than section 20(1), because it was the presence of business information that was the basis for Heinz’s right of review. They submitted that a person wishing to complain about the disclosure of personal information should instead seek a remedy under the Privacy Act. The application judge disagreed and concluded that Heinz could raise the personal information exemption under section 19(1) and ordered the severance of certain records containing personal information. An appeal by the Attorney General was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority concluded that “the importance of protecting personal information, combined with the open language of sections 28, 44(1) and 51 of the Access Act, leads to the conclusion that a reviewing court can, on a section 44 application, consider and apply the privacy exemption set out in section 19(1).” Therefore, where it has come to the attention of a third party that a government institution intends to disclose personal information that will violate the privacy rights of an individual, the third party will have the right to raise that concern upon a judicial review. As the court noted, “a contrary ruling would force individuals to wait until the personal information has been disclosed and the (potentially irreversible) harm done before looking to the Privacy Commissioner or the courts for a remedy.”

For a copy of the SCC decision, visit:

H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)