Savard v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner)
- Citation
- 2002 FCT 803
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 19 July 2002
- Posture
- Application for Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Under Rule 369
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 19 July 2002
- Posture
- Application for Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Under Rule 369
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Applying David Bull Laboratories, the Court found no excess of jurisdiction by the Privacy Commissioner, his actions complied with the Privacy Act and his recommendations were adopted by the Correctional Service of Canada; therefore the plaintiff cannot obtain judicial review and the application must be struck out.
Court disposition
Defendant's motion allowed; plaintiff's application for judicial review struck out.
Orders
- The application for judicial review filed by the plaintiff is struck out.
- Defendant's motion under Rule 369 is allowed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Jean-Guy Savard
Plaintiff Counsel: Jean-Guy SavardPrivacy Commissioner of Canada
Defendant Counsel: Sean T. McGee03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Under Rule 369
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff may obtain judicial review of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations
- 02
Whether the Privacy Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction under the Privacy Act
- 03
Whether the application for judicial review should be struck under Rule 369
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff challenged the Privacy Commissioner's handling of his file, alleging retention of erroneous information and asserting that the Commissioner exceeded his powers and that judicial review was appropriate.
- Respondent
- Defendant argued that the Commissioner has limited powers under the Privacy Act, that he did not exceed his jurisdiction, that his recommendations were adopted by the Correctional Service of Canada, and moved to strike the application under Rule 369; relied on David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Privacy Act (Canada)
The Privacy Commissioner has limited remedial powers under the Privacy Act regarding retention of information in third‑party files.
- 02
David Bull Laboratories Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588 (F.C.A.)
Judicial review is available only where a public decision‑maker has committed a jurisdictional error or exceeded its statutory powers; absence of such error defeats review.
- 03
Decision facts (Correctional Service of Canada adopted recommendations)
Adoption of the Commissioner's recommendations by the final decision‑maker reduces grounds for successful judicial review of the Commissioner.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Applying David Bull Laboratories, the Court found no excess of jurisdiction by the Privacy Commissioner, his actions complied with the Privacy Act and his recommendations were adopted by the Correctional Service of Canada; therefore the plaintiff cannot obtain judicial review and the application must be struck out.
Obiter and limits
- The Privacy Commissioner’s function is limited to making recommendations concerning retention of information.
- Court expressly adopts paras. 13–23 of the defendant’s written submissions.
Court disposition
Defendant's motion allowed; plaintiff's application for judicial review struck out.
- The application for judicial review filed by the plaintiff is struck out.
- Defendant's motion under Rule 369 is allowed.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 19 July 2002
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 19 July 2002
Savard v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-07-19 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 803 File numbers T-102-02 Decision Content Date: 20020719 Docket: T-102-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 803 Montréal, Quebec, July 19, 2002 Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary BETWEEN: JEAN-GUY SAVARD Plaintiff and
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
OF CANADA Defendant Motion by defendant under Rule 369 to strike the application for judicial review filed against it by the plaintiff.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] In the case at bar the Court must apply David Bull Laboratories Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588 (F.C.A.), and allow the defendant's motion at bar, and accordingly order that the application for judicial review filed against it by the plaintiff be struck out. [2] The plaintiff should clearly understand that the defendant has a limited power and function under his enabling legislation as to whether he should retain in the plaintiff's file information which the plaintiff considers to be erroneous. [3] In the case at bar it appeared from the evidence in the record that the defendant committed no excess of jurisdiction and performed each of his obligations in accordance with the Privacy Act, and the defendant's recommendations were adopted at the inquiry by the Correctional Service of Canada. [4] Clearly, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim judicial review of the defendant here. [5] The Court adopts and entirely concurs in the reasons contained in paras. 13 to 23 of the written submissions filed by the defendant in support of its application. "Richard Morneau" prothonotary Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION Date: 20020719 Docket: T-102-02 Between: JEAN-GUY SAVARD Plaintiff and
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
OF CANADA Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD FILE: T-102-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN-GUY SAVARD and
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
OF CANADA WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY DATED: July 19, 2002 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Jean-Guy Savard for the plaintiff Sean T. McGee for the defendant SOLICITOR OF RECORD: Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne for the defendant Ottawa, Ontario
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.