Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)

Canada Post Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)

The appeal is dismissed because the motions judge correctly found that the evidence did not establish that the information was treated consistently as confidential under s.20(1)(b) and that the confidentiality test under s.20(1)(c) was not met; no palpable and overriding error was shown.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 FCA 395
Parties
Appellant: Canada Post Corporation; Respondent: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Access to Information Act Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Exemptions, Paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Access to Information Information Law Confidentiality Exemptions Paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) Standard of Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Post Corporation

Appellant

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Access to Information Act Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court

  1. 1 Whether information met the confidentiality requirement in s.20(1)(b) by being treated consistently as confidential
  2. 2 Whether information met the confidentiality test in s.20(1)(c) (risk of harm from disclosure)
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge committed a palpable and overriding error in applying the legal tests

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the motions judge correctly found that the evidence did not establish that the information was treated consistently as confidential under s.20(1)(b) and that the confidentiality test under s.20(1)(c) was not met; no palpable and overriding error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.