Information Commissioner of Canada v. Prime Minister of Canada; Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of Transport Canada; Information Commissioner of Canada v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence (Supreme Court of Canada)
These four cases, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in October of 2010, consider whether Minister’s offices, including the Prime Minister’s Office, are considered “government institutions” for the purposes of the federal Access to Information Act. The cases arose out of complaints made to the Information Commissioner about refusals to provide information in response to a number of requests. The refusals were based on the fact that the relevant documents were in a Minister’s office and thus were not held by a “government institution” subject to the Act.
The CCLA intervened in these cases to argue for a large and liberal interpretation of the federal Access to Information Act. It urged the Court to find that the Act was quasi-constitutional in nature and that, in the absence of language specifically excluding Ministers from the definition of “government institution”, they should be considered subject to the Act. This interpretation would ensure that the Act was given its broad meaning and that the intent behind the Act, namely to ensure that government information is available to the public, was being met. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision is under reserve.
- Read the CCLA’s factum
- Read the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary of Information Commissioner of Canada v. Prime Minister of Canada
- Read the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary of Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of Transport Canada
- Read the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary of Information Commissioner of Canada v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- Read the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary of Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence
- Watch the webcast of the hearings
- Read the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision
