Canada Case Law

Vancouver (City) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court found two aspects of the adjudicator's decision unreasonable: (1) it was unreasonable to conclude the City did not need case study addresses to scrutinize Coriolis' financial modelling given the adjudicator accepted Coriolis would cease providing addresses; and (2) it was unreasonable to conclude the pro formas and addresses were not information "about" the owners of the case study properties under s.21(1). The Court set aside the adjudicator's decision in part and remitted the matter to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to reconsider and complete the analyses u…

Source excerpt

• S.17 fippa economic harm
• S.21 fippa third party information
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Remittal to statutory decision-maker

Read case analysis

S.F.M. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Opportunities and Social Development)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found the Department conducted a reasonable search and the majority of redactions made under s.20(1) were justified given the files' child‑welfare context and third‑party privacy interests; limited disclosure was required — the recorded birthdate on page 1 and the birthdate referenced on page 1399 must be disclosed — and several specific documents were mischaracterized as privileged or exempt and must be unredacted, while other documents were properly withheld under s.16 (privilege), s.14(1) (advice) or s.4(2)(b) (public record/duplicates). The appeal is allowed in part and dismisse…

Source excerpt

• Foipop act
• Third party personal privacy
• Reasonable search
• Solicitor-client privilege
• Public record exception
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

R. v. Earle

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The application for production of the Complainant's therapy records and educational project is denied because the Accused failed to establish likely relevance under s.278.3: the therapy notes were handwritten summaries and non‑verbatim, the content relevant to credibility and change in perception is already contained in the Complainant's police statement available to Defence, and the asserted links were speculative and unsupported; consequently there was no need to address necessity under s.278.5.

Source excerpt

• Section 278 record production
• Likely relevance
• Necessity in the interests of justice (s.278.5)
• Publication ban (s.486.4)
• Therapeutic records
• Prior inconsistent statements

Read case analysis

Hart v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court allowed an ATIA application, held the RCMP’s discretionary withholding decision was unreasonable, and remitted the request for redetermination.

• Section 16(1)(a)(ii) atia - law enforcement exemption
• Section 19(1) atia - personal information exemption
• Section 25 atia - severability
• Discretionary exercise of exemptions
• Standard of review (vavilov)
• Access-to-information

Read case analysis

G.D. v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The pleadings disclose a viable cause of action under s.1 of the Privacy Act and, on the evidentiary record (TransLink's investigation identifying accessed folders and individualized notifications plus expert reports), there is some basis in fact for an identifiable class and for common issues concerning access, breach of statutory duties under FIPPA, and wilful violation under the Privacy Act; a class proceeding is the preferable and efficient mechanism to resolve these common issues, while claims for vicarious liability and restitutionary disgorgement lack evidentiary foundation and are not…

Source excerpt

• Privacy act s.1
• Fippa s.30
• Cpa certification requirements s.4(1)
• Aggregate damages and nominal/punitive damages
• Vicarious liability (rejected)

Read case analysis

Commissioner of Competition v. Amazon.com Et. Al.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court did not err: section 11 discretion must be exercised consistent with Charter s.8, the judge permissibly required adequate information about the scope of the Data Request before ordering production, the pre‑hearing letters were properly before the court as part of the disclosure record and were not accepted as incontrovertible fact, and Rule 399(1) does not relieve the issuing judge of the duty to be satisfied at the ex parte stage; here the Commissioner failed to justify the scope of the Data Request so the production order was properly refuse…

Source excerpt

• Production order
• Section 11 competition act
• Search and seizure
• Charter s.8
• Ex parte applications
• Full and frank disclosure

Read case analysis

Tung v. Lu

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Material facts must be pleaded for non-family civil claims in family proceedings; where pleadings contain no material facts the court may consider affidavit evidence to test whether claims are 'capable of being repaired' and whether they are bound to fail. Applying the law to the facts before the court, the judge struck or dismissed the non-family claims: all of Nancy's civil claims were struck; all but two of Anshan's civil claims were struck; the two surviving Anshan claims (conspiracy against Hans and breach of contract against CIBC) were dismissed on summary trial because Nancy's contrave…

Source excerpt

• Pleadings and particulars
• Striking pleadings
• Summary trial
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Intentional interference with economic interests
• Conspiracy

Read case analysis

Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal in a section 72 immigration judicial review, finding paragraph 72(2)(e) of IRPA barred the appeal and no palpable error was shown.

• Safe third country agreement
• Section 15 charter claim
• Interlocutory appeal bar under irpa s72(2)(e)
• Solicitor-client privilege
• Production of documents
• Privacy act redactions

Read case analysis

Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed a citizenship mandamus and judicial review application, finding no proof of a complete 2021 application and no reviewable error in the 2022 refusal.

• Citizenship application
• Mandamus
• Procedural fairness
• Data retention and deletion
• Physical presence requirement
• Application completeness

Read case analysis

Vandenbosch v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The chambers judge correctly construed the BPCPA amendments as retrospective but not retroactive; because the appellant's dispute arose before the amendments came into force the arbitration clause remains enforceable, the prerequisites for a stay were met, and the chambers judge did not err in extending the stay to Match on grounds of judicial economy; the appellant may not raise new issues or revive abandoned arguments on appeal.

Source excerpt

• Retroactivity vs retrospective effect
• Transitional provisions
• Stay of proceedings
• Arbitrability
• Non‑signatory arbitration
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis