Company Entitled to Restrict Disclosure of Documents Requested Under Access to Information Act Containing Personal Information

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) received a request under the Access to Information Act (Act) for access to certain records pertaining to the respondent, H J Heinz Co of Canada Ltd (H J Heinz). CFIA concluded that some of the records might contain confidential business or scientific information and asked H J Heinz to make representations as to why the information should not be disclosed. After reviewing the representations, CFIA concluded that the records should be disclosed, subject to certain redactions. In response, H J Heinz applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of CFIA's decision, asserting that the documents should not be disclosed because they contained personal information. The application judge determined that H J Heinz could claim an exemption for personal information under section 19 of the Act, and ordered the severance of certain records. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision and the Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In dismissing the appeal (4-3), the Supreme Court found that "[i]t is apparent from the scheme and legislative histories of the [Act] and the Privacy Act that the combined purpose of the two statutes is to strike a careful balance between privacy rights and the right of access to information. However, within this balanced scheme, the [two statutes] afford greater protection to personal information. By imposing stringent restrictions on the disclosure of personal information, Parliament clearly intended that no violation of privacy rights should occur." In the context of an anticipated review of the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the decision is important for another reason. The Court took notice of the fact that while the Privacy and Information Commissioners play central roles in the access and privacy debates, they "are of little help [in matters such as these] because, with no power to make binding orders, they have no teeth." Where such rights underpin the framework of both an information economy and a free and democratic society, the Court's recognition gives further credence to calls for a re-evaluation of the Commissioners' powers as first arbiters. For the full text of the decision in H J Heinz Co Of Canada Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 SCC 13, see: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2006/2006scc13.html Summary by: Jason Young