Del Zotto v. Canada (Solicitor General)

Del Zotto v. Canada (Solicitor General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-10-26 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 349 File numbers A-111-05 Decision Content Date: 20051026 Docket: A-111-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 349 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: ELVIO DEL ZOTTO Appellant and SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario on October 26, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on October 26, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20051026 Docket: A-111-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 349 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: ELVIO DEL ZOTTO Appellant and SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on October 26, 2005) SHARLOW J.A. [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