Federal Access to Information and Privacy Legislation Annotated 2020


What’s inside

Table of contents

Table of content not available at this time

Details and specs:

Federal Access to Information and Privacy Legislation Annotated 2020 is comprehensive in scope, containing everything you need to interpret and apply federal access to information and privacy legislation. Also contains a compendium of key materials. This key publication is written by two of the country's leading access and privacy lawyers. 

New in this edition
Annotated Access to Information Act – Third Party Information 
Where a request pertains to information submitted to a government agency by a third party, notice must be given to that third party, which may then argue that disclosure is prohibited by section 20. In this case, the information submitted did not show that access to information legislation had been successful in ensuring clinical trial transparency: Doshi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 710.
Annotated Access to Information Act – Third Party Information
Bombardier Inc. was seeking judicial review of four decisions made by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), or its predecessor, Industry Canada, in response to two requests for information made under the Access to Information Act. Bombardier opposed the release of some of the requested information. In its analysis of the 20(1)(b) exemption, applying the Air Atonabee test, the Court concluded that Bombardier failed to establish that the disputed information was communicated to ISED with a reasonable expectation that it would not be disclosed to the public. The Court concluded that Bombardier has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of probable harm with the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the ATIA that would directly result from the disclosure of the disputed information that is “well beyond” or “considerably above” the merely possible or speculative: Bombardier inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 207.
Annotated Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act Publication – Schedule 1, Principles Set Out in the National Standard of Canada Entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, CAN/CSA-Q830-96 - Principle 7: Safeguards 
The Court concluded that the Respondent was in violation of its obligations under clause 4.7.1 of the PIPEDA by failing to take appropriate safeguard measures to protect against the loss of personal information. The Respondent indicated to the OPC that the Applicant’s records had been picked up by a secure destruction service provider when they were actually not. That the Respondent informed the OPC that the Applicant’s personal records were destroyed, when in fact they were not, led the court to the conclusion that the Respondent did not know where the Applicant’s personal records were located: Montalbo v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 FC 1155.
Annotated Privacy Act –Where Access is Refused 
The Federal Court stated that the issue of whether a government institution can adopt a policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of information is well established in the jurisprudence. The Court was satisfied that, in this case, the CSE’s discretion to adopt a policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of personal information was reasonably exercised: Martinez v. Canada (Communications Security Establishment), 2018 FC 1179.


Practice Area:


Publication Date:

Hardcover Specifications

Service #:

Sub #:


Shelf Space:


Anticip Unkeep Cost:

eBook Specifications