Case information

Access to information — Exemptions — Personal information — Information about employee that relates to employee’s position or functions — Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that video images of officers did not constitute information that related to position or functions of those officers within meaning of s. 3(j) of Privacy Act, which would have allowed their disclosure — Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that Canada Border Services Agency had correctly relied on s. 19(1) of Access to Information Act to refuse disclosure of video images — Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that Canada Border Services Agency had dealt with access to information request while discharging its duty under s. 25 of Access to Information Act — Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding that application of s. 19(2) of Access to Information Act went beyond scope of appeal — Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, s. 19(1) — Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, s. 3(j) “personal information”.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public)

The applicant, Régis Beniey, submitted an access to information request to the Canada Border Services Agency. The Agency disclosed to him only certain written reports and video images, relying on s. 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, which requires the head of a government institution to refuse to disclose any record that contains personal information. After receiving the report of the Information Commissioner of Canada, who rejected his complaint, Mr. Beniey applied for a review under s. 41(1) of the Act. He sought a declaration that the Agency could not rely on s. 19(1) to refuse to disclose certain recordings and an order that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness respond in full to the access to information request. Mr. Beniey alleged that the Agency had erred in its interpretation of the definition of “personal information” and, in particular, the exception set out in s. 3(j) of the Privacy Act, which specifically concerns information about employees of a government institution that relates to their position or functions.

The Federal Court allowed Mr. Beniey’s application and found that the images taken fell under the exception to the definition of “personal information” in s. 3(j) of the Privacy Act, as information that related to the position and functions of the officers concerned. The court ordered the Agency to give the applicant the video images identified. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Beniey’s main appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. It set aside the trial judgment and dismissed Mr. Beniey’s application. The Agency could rightfully rely on s. 19(1) to refuse disclosure of the images of the officers appearing in the videos.