Date: 20030425
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 507
Docket: T-2100-00
BETWEEN
GEOPHYSICAL SERVICE INCORPORATED
Applicant
- and -
CANADA -NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE
PETROLEUM BOARD
Respondent
BETWEEN:
Docket: T-2101-00
GEOPHYSICAL SERVICE INCORPORATED
Applicant
- and -
THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Respondent
Docket: T-2102-00
BETWEEN
GEOPHYSICAL SERVICE INCORPORATED
Applicant
- and -
THE CHAIRMAN, CANADA-NOVA SCOTIA
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM BOARD
Respondent
GIBSON J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] These reasons follow the hearing at Halifax on the 5th and 6th of February, 2003 of three (3) applications brought under section 41 of the Access to Information Act[1] (the "Access Act"). That section reads as follows:
41. Any person who has been refused access to a record requested under this Act or a part thereof may, if a complaint has been made to the Information Commissioner in respect of the refusal, apply to the Court for a review of the matter within forty-five days after the time the results of an investigation of the complaint by the Information Commissioner are reported to the complainant under subsection 37(2) or within such further time as the Court may, either before or after the expiration of those forty-five days, fix or allow.
41. La personne qui s'est vu refuser communication totale ou partielle d'un document demandé en vertu de la présente loi et qui a déposé ou fait déposer une plainte à ce sujet devant le Commissaire à l'information peut, dans un délai de quarante-cinq jours suivant le compte rendu du Commissaire prévu au paragraphe 37(2), exercer un recours en révision de la décision de refus devant la Cour. La Cour peut, avant ou après l'expiration du délai, le proroger ou en autoriser la prorogation.
[2] Geophysical Service Incorporated of Calgary, Alberta (the "Applicant") is the Applicant on each of the three (3) applications. The Respondents, in order of the Court's file numbers are: The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (the "Canada-Newfoundland Board"), The Chairman, National Energy Board (the "National Board") and The Chairman, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (the "Canada-Nova Scotia Board"). By Order of the Court dated the 12th of December, 2002, the three (3) applications were heard together.
[3] In the application brought against the Canada-Newfoundland Board, the Applicant seeks review of:
(a) The refusal of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board ("CNOPB") dated April 5, 2000, to provide to the Applicant information requested by it from the CNOPB by request of March 1st , 2000; and
(b) The letter of finding of the Information Commissioner of Canada dated September 26th , 2000 reporting his findings of an investigation into a complaint by the Applicant dated April 25, 2000 pertaining to the decision of the CNOPB of April 5th, 2000... .
[4] The application against the National Board seeks equivalent review in relation to the refusal by that Board dated the 21st of March, 2000 to provide to the Applicant information requested by it from the National Board by request of the 2nd of March, 2000 and the letter of finding of the Information Commissioner of Canada dated the 22nd of September, 2000 reporting his findings on an investigation into a complaint by the Applicant dated the 25th of April, 2000 pertaining to the National Board's decision of the 21st of March, 2000.
[5] The application against the Canada-Nova Scotia Board seeks review, once again in essentially the same terms, against the refusal by that Board, dated the 3rd of April, 2000, to provide to the Applicant information requested by it from that Board by request of the 2nd of March, 2000 and the letter of finding of the Information Commissioner of Canada dated the 19th of October, 2000 reporting his findings on an investigation into a complaint by the Applicant dated the 25th of April, 2000 pertaining to the decision of the Canada-Nova Scotia Board of the 3rd of April, 2000.
[6] In each case, the Applicant seeks an order pursuant to section 49 of the Access Act requiring the relevant Board or the Chairman of the relevant Board to disclose to the Applicant the information that had been requested.
THE PARTIES
[7] The Applicant which, is in the business of collecting and otherwise acquiring, either under contract or on its own initiative, geophysical seismic data. Where the Applicant collects and acquires such data under contract, it provides the data to its client which, in turn, either by itself or through others, uses the data in the conduct of exploration for petroleum and natural gas. Where the Applicant collects and otherwise acquires geophysical data on its own initiative, it licenses the use of the data to clients who in turn use it in the conduct of exploration for petroleum and natural gas. The operations of the Applicant are conducted both on-shore and off-shore. Where the collection is done on-shore in Canada, it is done under licence from the National Board. Where the Applicant's operations are conducted offshore in an area under the jurisdiction of either the Canada-Newfoundland Board or the Canada-Nova Scotia Board, the operations are conducted under licence from whichever of those Boards is appropriate. In each case, as a condition of licence, the Applicant is required to deposit with the appropriate Board and, where the National Board is not the appropriate Board, also with the National Board, a copy of the geophysical seismic data collected. Each of the three (3) Boards has adopted the practice, on request, of releasing copies of the data deposited with it by the Applicant to third parties, without consultation with, or consent of the Applicant, following the expiration of a period of time set by law or by policy of the appropriate Board.
[8] Each of the three (3) Boards, among other things, licenses geophysical seismic data collection and requires the deposit of such geophysical seismic data, where the collection is done within the geographical area of its responsibility, under the authority of legislation and related relevant regulations. In the case of the Canada-Newfoundland Board, the relevant legislation is the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act[2] (the "Canada-Newfoundland Act") and companion "mirror" legislation of the province of Newfoundland.[3] In the case of the National Board, the relevant legislation is the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act[4]. Finally, in the case of the Canada-Nova Scotia Board, the relevant legislation is the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act[5] (the "Canada-Nova Scotia Act"), and companion "mirror" legislation of the province of Nova Scotia[6].
THE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND THE INITIAL RESPONSES
[9] On the 1st of March, 2000, the applicant requested of the Canada-Newfoundland Board that it provide the names and addresses of all third parties who had, within the preceding one hundred and fifty-four (154) months, requested and been granted access to information concerning or provided by the applicant to the Board, together with details of the information provided.
[10] By letter dated the 5th of April, 2000, the Canada-Newfoundland Board replied in the following terms:
The information that you request was provided for the purposes of Part II or Part III of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and therefore according to Section 119(2) is "privileged and shall not knowingly be disclosed without the consent in writing of the person who provided it except for the purposes of administration or enforcement of either Part or for the purposes of legal proceedings relating to such administration or enforcement." The confidentiality of this class of information does not expire.
As well, the information you have requested would be exempt under a number of provisions of the Access to Information Act, including ss. 19(1), ss. 20(1), para. 21(1)(a)(b) and ss. 24(1). ...
As both the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Access to Information Act prohibit disclosure, we cannot provide the information you seek.[7]
[11] On the 2nd of March, 2000, the Applicant requested of the National Board that it provide the names and addresses of all third parties who had, within the preceding one hundred and eighty (180) months, requested and been granted access to information concerning or provided by the Applicant to the Board, together with details of the information provided. In essence, the request was the same as that made to the Canada-Newfoundland Board except that the number of months to which the request was related was varied.
[12] By letter dated the 21st of March, 2000, the National Board responded to the Applicant's request in the following terms:
As you are aware, the information you provide to the Board for the purposes of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) or the Canada Petroleum Resources Act (CPRA) is kept in our Frontier Information Office (FIO), after it has been released from privileged status pursuant to Section 101 of CPRA. A person who wishes to consult any information in the FIO makes an appointment to do so and attends at the FIO. Once in the FIO, the person may consult and photocopy any released information respecting oil and gas exploration and production operations on frontier lands. The Board does not record the specific information viewed by a person conducting research in the FIO. Therefore, the Board does not have any record of the persons who have had access to specific information concerning or provided by your organization, in the FIO.
If a person borrows information from the FIO, the Board records the specifics of the information borrowed to ensure its return. The Board has reviewed all of the available records of information borrowed going back approximately 42 months. Unfortunately, the records of information borrowed do not exist beyond this time period.
Attached please find copies of all the accessible records you requested. Please note that portions of the records have been severed, pursuant to section 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act (the Act), which states:[8]
. . .
[Substance of the opening words of subsection 20(1) and paragraph (c) of that subsection omitted]
[13] By letter dated the 2nd of March, 2000, the Applicant requested of the Canada-Nova Scotia Board that it provide the names and addresses of all third parties who had, within the preceding one hundred and twenty-three (123) months, requested and been granted access to information concerning or provided by the Applicant to the Board, together with details of the information provided. Once again, with the exception of the number of months to which the request related, the request was the same as that made of the Canada-Newfoundland Board and the National Board.
[14] By letter dated the 3rd of April, 2000, the Canada-Nova Scotia Board responded to the Applicant in the following terms:
Please be advised that the above referenced request is refused on the following grounds:
1) Pursuant to Subsection 122(2) of the Accord legislation, the information referenced in your request, is privileged and cannot be released without the written consent of the parties who provided it. In this regard, I would also refer you to Subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act.
2) Pursuant to Subsection 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act, as release of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of the third parties.
I believe that it is worth noting that this request is very similar to one made by a representative of your company in October 1999. That request was refused for the same reasons. At that time, the Board contacted all third parties seeking their consent to disclose the subject information and all refused to consent.[9]
[15] In substance, with the exception of the National Board, all requests were refused. The National Board only provided the Applicant with information disclosed and did not disclose the names and addresses of requesters. The National Board did not rely on a claim of privilege arising out of its governing legislation. The Canada-Newfoundland Board relied on a wider range of provisions of the Access to Information Act then did either of the other Boards. Only the Canada-Nova Scotia Board indicated there had been consultation with any of the persons who had accessed relevant information.
THE COMPLAINTS TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND RELATED RESPONSES
[16] On the 25th of April, 2000, the Applicant, by its counsel, made complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (the "Information Commissioner") in respect of each of the three (3) responses.
[17] By letter dated the 26th of September, 2000, the Information Commissioner responded to the Applicant's complaint regarding the Canada-Newfoundland Board. His response read in part as follows:
Following receipt of your complaint, we intervened with the department. [The Canada Newfoundland Board] agreed to disclose some information. As you know, following discussions between CNOPB and [the Applicant] a record was created and disclosed to your client on August 22. The remaining withheld information consists of the identities of the third parties who requested access to [the Applicant's] geophysical information and is exempted under paragraph 20(1)(c) and subsections 19(1) and 24(1) [of the Access to Information Act]. CNOPB ceased its reliance on paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 21(1)(a) and (b) to withhold information.
Having personally reviewed the information which remains withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c), I am satisfied that it is the names of firms which requested access to [the applicant's] geophysical information. I am of the opinion that such information, if released, could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the third parties' competitive positions. Under these circumstances, the head of a government institution is required under paragraph 20(1)(c), to refuse to disclose these records. The identities of individuals requesting information were withheld under authority of subsection 19(1) of the Act. Subsection 19(1) is a mandatory exemption subject to subsection 19(2). Since, in my opinion, none of the provisions of subsection 19(2) apply, CNOPB had no choice but to withhold this information.
CNOPB applied subsection 24(1) in conjunction with subsection 19(1) and paragraph 20(1)(c) to withhold the same information. When a department properly relies upon a provision of the Act when exempting a record or portion thereof it is not necessary for me to inquire into the propriety of other provisions it may have invoked. Consequently, it is not necessary for me to make a finding with respect to subsection 24(1).
Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that you have been provided with all the records, relevant to your request, to which you are entitled under the law. Accordingly, I find your complaint to be resolved.[10] [emphasis added]
[18] The Information Commissioner replied to the Applicant's complaint regarding the National Board by letter dated the 22nd of September, 2000. That letter read in part as follows:
...Copies of the severed forms were provided to you with the identities of third parties withheld under authority of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Act.
Having personally reviewed the records in question, I am of the opinion that the exempted information, if released, could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the third parties' competitive position. Under these circumstances, the head of a government institution is required to refuse to disclose these records.
I am satisfied that you have been provided with all the records relevant to your request to which you are entitled under the law. Accordingly, I am unable to support your complaint and will so inform the department.[11] [emphasis added]
[19] The Information Commissioner replied to the Applicant's complaint regarding to the Canada-Nova Scotia Board by letter dated the 19th of October, 2000. That letter read in part as follows:
Having personally reviewed the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(c), I am of the opinion that, if released, it could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the third parties' competitive positions. Under these circumstances, the head of a government institution is required to refuse to disclose these records.
[The Canada-Nova Scotia Board] applied subsection 24(1) in conjunction with paragraph 20(1)(c) to withhold the same information. When a department properly relies upon a provision of the Act when exempting a record or portion thereof it is not necessary for me to inquire into the propriety of other provisions it may have invoked. Consequently, it is not necessary for me to make a finding with respect to subsection 24(1).
In your letter dated June 8, 2000, you made a case that, notwithstanding the Acts and Regulations governing [The Canada-Nova Scotia Board], which after five years removes privileged status from geophysical information, collected by the institute, your client's position is that the information remains proprietary to him; and therefore should be protected from disclosure under the Act. Subsection 2(2) of the Access Act states: "This Act is intended to complement and not replace existing procedures for access to government information and is not intended to limit in any way access to the type of government information that is normally available to the general public."
Based on the foregoing, it is obvious that confidential/proprietary information, which loses its privileged status for protection based on a particular act or regulation; and is available to the public on request, cannot then be protected from disclosure by any provision of the Act.
I am satisfied that with the disclosure of some information to you and the imminent further release you will have been provided with all the records, relevant to your request, to which you are entitled under the law. Accordingly, I find that your complaint is resolved.[12]
FURTHER RESPONSES BY THE RESPONDENTS
[20] By letter dated the 15th of June, 2000, the Canada-Nova Scotia Board again replied to the Applicant, on this occasion, enclosing the "program numbers of the data which was accessed by third parties". It noted:
The balance of the information you requested remains privileged under section 122 of the Accord Act.[13]
The "balance of the information you requested" essentially amounted to the names and addresses of requesters and the linkage between each of them and the information disclosed.
[21] On the 22nd of August, 2000, the Canada-Newfoundland Board again responded to the Applicant enclosing a list of public requests for data provided by the Applicant since 1987.[14] In the result, the Canada-Newfoundland Board put itself into a position equivalent to that of the other two boards, that is to say, it withheld only the names and addresses of requesters of information provided by the Applicant and the linkage between each of them and the information disclosed.
[22] After the filing of these applications, the National Board found itself in a position where, for technical reasons, it was required to reconsider the Applicant's request for access to information held by it. There had only been two (2) requests made to it, in the period for which it had information, for information concerning or provided by the Applicant to it. The National Board sought submissions from each of the two affected parties. Based on those submissions, the National Board notified the Applicant that it would provide one of the two relevant records it possessed, including the name of the affected party that had obtained information concerning or provided by the Applicant. The National Board lived up to this undertaking. That being said, following a request by the Applicant, it refused to provide submissions made to it by the affected party whose identity it disclosed, apparently setting forth the affected party's rationale as to why its name should not be disclosed.
[23] In relation to the other requester, that is the requester whose identity the National Board determined not to disclose, the National Board relied on paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act to support its position. That being said, the National Board did disclose to the Applicant the reasons given by that requester as to why its identity should not be disclosed.
[24] Only the National Board, following receipt of the request from the Applicant here at issue, consulted directly with each of the requesters potentially affected by the Applicant's request regarding the applicability of paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act. The Canada-Nova Scotia Board had earlier sought the consent of requesters to the release of their names but each of the requesters had refused consent. The Canada-Nova Scotia Board did not seek from the requesters reasons for their refusal of consent.
THE ISSUES AND RELIEFS SOUGHT
[25] The issues before the Court on these applications are described in the Applicant's Memorandum of Fact and Law in the following terms:
- Have the Respondent[s]... met the burden of proving that they are justified by paragraph 20(1)(c) of the [Access Act] in refusing to disclose the information requested by the Applicant on the ground that the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss to or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive advantage of a third party?
- Do subsection 119(2) of the [Canada-Newfoundland Act] and subsection 122(2) of the [Canada-Nova Scotia Act] operate to make the names of the parties accessing the geophysical information provided by [the Applicant] privileged?
- Did the Respondent Chairman of the [Canada-Newfoundland Board] err in concluding that the names of the parties accessing the geophysical information filed by [the Applicant] were "personal information" pursuant to subsection 19(1) of the [Access Act]?[15]
[26] In a supplementary Memorandum of Fact and Law filed on behalf of the Applicant on the 17th of July, 2002, the Applicant notes that both the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board have relied in their Memoranda on grounds for withholding the identity of requesters not previously noted in correspondence from those boards to the Applicant. Both boards cite subsection 19(1) of the Access Act in support of their refusals of disclosure. The National Board also makes reference to section 24 and Schedule II of the Access Act and section 101 of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act[16], the latter being a "privilege" provision somewhat equivalent to section 119 of the Canada-Newfoundland Act and section 122 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Act. The Canada-Nova Scotia Board raises the issue of subsection 22(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Nova Scotia[17].
[27] By reason of the foregoing citations, the Applicant raises as a supplementary issue whether the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board are entitled to rely on the newly-cited grounds of refusal. It is a natural adjunct of the new issue identified by the Applicant that a further issue is, if either the National Board or the Canada-Nova Scotia Board is permitted to rely on the new citations, are those citations sufficient of themselves or in conjunction with others to support the refusals still maintained by the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board.
[28] Extracts from letters from the Information Commissioner to the Applicant that appear earlier in these reasons confirm that the new references sought to be relied on by the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board were not before the Information Commissioner when he enquired into the Applicant's complaints in relation to those two boards. By contrast, both subsections 19(1) and 24(1) of the Access Act were before the Information Commissioner when he examined the Applicant's complaint relating to the Canada-Newfoundland Board and subsection 24(1) was before him when he examined the Applicant's complaint relating to the Canada-Nova Scotia Board.
[29] I am satisfied that the foregoing description of the issues before the Court, as provided on behalf of the Applicant, accurately reflect the issues on these three (3) applications.
[30] The Applicant seeks orders pursuant to section 49 of the Access Act requiring each of the Respondents to disclose the balance of the information requested by the Applicant pursuant to the Access Act, from each of them. In its Memorandum of Fact and Law, the Applicant also seeks costs of each of the applications. This latter request for relief was modified during the course of the hearing of the applications. The question of costs will be returned to later in these reasons.
[31] Each of the Respondents seeks dismissal of the relevant application of the Applicant. Only the Canada-Newfoundland Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board seek costs.
THE STATUTORY SCHEMES
[32] Section 119 of the Canada-Newfoundland Act, section 122 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Act and section 101 of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act are reproduced in Schedule "A" to these reasons. It is to be noted that the sections from the Canada-Newfoundland Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Act are essentially identical while section 101 of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act is, for the purposes of this matter, substantively very similar.
[33] Subsection 2(1), section 19, the opening words of subsection 20(1) and paragraph (c) of that subsection and subsection 24(1) of the Access Act are set out in Schedule "B" to these reasons. Sections 119 of the Canada-Newfoundland Act, 122 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Act and 101 of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act are all provisions "set out" in Schedule II of the Access Act for the purposes of subsection 24(1) of that Act.
ANALYSIS
a) General Principles
[34] In Rubin v. Canada (Minister of Health)[18], Justice Nadon, then of the Trial Division of this Court, wrote at paragraphs [36] and [37]:
Section 2 of the Act [the Access Act] codifies the public right of access and the basic premise that the public should have access to government records, and that exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific. It has also been established that the burden of demonstrating that access to documents should be denied rests on the party opposing disclosure. In Maislin Industries Ltd., ... Jerome A.C.J. stated the following ...:
It should be emphasized however, that since the basic principle of these statutes is to codify the right of public access to government information, two things follow: first, that such public access ought not be frustrated by the courts except upon the clearest grounds so that doubt ought to be resolved in favour of disclosure; second, the burden of persuasion must rest upon the party resisting disclosure whether, as in this case, it is the private corporation or citizen, or in other circumstances, the government.
With respect to applications for judicial review under s. 41 of the Act, as in the present instance, this principle is codified in s. 48 of the Act. Therefore, the onus rests on the Respondent to convince this Court, with direct evidence, that the material requested by the Applicant should not be disclosed and that it can benefit from the exemptions set out in s-s. 20(1) of the Act. In addition, it is clearly established in the jurisprudence that the standard of proof to be applied in respect of s-s. 20(1) of the Act is that of balance of probabilities. [citations omitted]
[35] All of the bases of exemption claimed in this matter are mandatory in nature. In Canadian Jewish Congress v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)[19], Justice Heald wrote at page 280:
If the exemption provision was mandatory, then there is only one type of decision: the factual decision as to whether the material comes within the description of the exempting provision. There is no second type of decision, as if the material is found to fall within the description, then the head of the institution is obligated to refuse disclosure. If a decision made under a mandatory exemption provision were to come before this Court for review, ... then firstly the Court would have to go through the record and determine whether or not the Minister was authorized to refuse disclosure. In so doing, the Court is effectually reviewing the factual decision. If the Court determined the Minister was in fact not authorized to refuse disclosure, then the Court would have to make an appropriate order. In the case of a mandatory exemption, an order for disclosure of the record would be an appropriate order if the Court determined the Minister had erred in the factual decision. The Act is clear in those cases that the material shall not be disclosed if falling within the exemption and the material shall be disclosed if it does not. [emphasis in original]
[36] I adopt the foregoing principles, which were not in essential dispute before me, for the purposes of these reasons.
b) Late-claimed bases for exemption from disclosure and a supplementary request for disclosure
[37] In Rubin, supra, Justice Nadon considered a fact situation in which a respondent, as here, relied upon a basis for exemption from disclosure not claimed until after the time the Information Commissioner reported on his investigation of the relevant complaint. Justice Nadon wrote at paragraph [56] of his reasons:
The Applicant contests its application herein due to the fact that the Respondent only invoked the exemption, ... after the report of the Information Commissioner. Pursuant to para. 10(1)(b) of the Act, if the head of a government institution refuses to give access to a record or part of a record, it must state in the notice to the requester the specific provision of the Act on which the refusal was based. Although the provision does not specify that the application of a particular provision must be announced within a definite period of time, s. 10 indicates that the notice sent to the requester must also state that the person can make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. This seems to indicate that the specific provision which will be relied upon by the institution must be indicated to the requester before the complaint is made to the Information Commissioner.
[38] Justice Nadon continues at paragraphs [59] and [60] of his reasons:
... the exemption pursuant to para. 13(1)(a) of the Act was not before the Information Commissioner when he investigated. The Commissioner's report states the following with respect to s. 13:
... As well. since HC has dropped its reliance on paragraphs 13(1)(a) and (b) and section 68 of the Act, I need not comment on those provisions. [Emphasis mine]
In my view, since the Respondent had dropped its reliance on s. 13 of the Act at the time of the Commissioner's investigation, it could not, a few months later, suddenly invoke that section again. The Respondent claims that it should be allowed to rely on para. 13(1)(a) since it was invoked on the material provided to the Applicant, although it was forgotten in the original notice. However, in my view, this is not sufficient. The Act clearly states that the provisions relied upon by the Respondent must be included in the notice. Therefore, I must agree with the Applicant that the Respondent is precluded from relying on s. 13 of the Act before this Court.
[39] The foregoing analysis was not dealt with by the Court of Appeal when Justice Nadon's decision was before it. In reasons delivered on behalf of the Court[20], Justice Rothstein wrote at paragraph [10]:
As the Minister need not rely upon section 13 in this case, we do not find it necessary to deal with Nadon J.'s finding in respect of section 13 and we make no comment on his analysis in this respect.
[40] I adopt Justice Nadon's reasoning in respect of the bases of exemption first relied on by the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board in their Memoranda of Fact and Law filed in these proceedings after the Information Commissioner had reported to the Applicant on his investigations into complaints made by the Applicant in respect of those Boards' positions. While it is entirely possible that the Information Commissioner, if those grounds for exemption had been before him, would have chosen not to comment on them based upon his conclusion that the exemptions in question were justified under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act, I regard that possibility as mere speculation. The scheme of the Access Act contemplates full disclosure to the requester on the bases claimed for exemptions in order that the requester might exercise the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner. On the facts of this matter, as with the facts before Justice Nadon, the requester, here the Applicant, was denied the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner in respect of a range of bases for exemption from disclosure that the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board now seek to rely on before this Court. I am satisfied that to allow those Boards to do so would contravene the spirit, if not the letter, of the Access Act and deny fairness to the Applicant.
[41] The supplementary basis for exemption relied on by the National Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Board in their Memoranda of Fact and Law, and not earlier made known to the Applicant, will not be further considered.
[42] The substantive reliance by the Canada-Nova Scotia Board on subsection 22(4) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Nova Scotia, supra, was effectively abandoned at the hearing before me. Counsel for the Canada-Nova Scotia Board noted:
...the FOIPOP Act, admittedly, doesn't apply but my argument on that is that you should have regard to that in construing the Federal Access to Information Act.[21]
My analysis will not be impacted by consideration of the Nova-Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Quite apart from the acknowledgement by counsel that it has no substantive application before me, I am satisfied that it would be equally inappropriate to consider its terms in construing the Access Act. While Parliament has made it clear that the Canada-Nova Scotia Act and its mirror provincial legislation must be read together, the same is not true for purposes of construction of the Access Act.
[43] Earlier in these reasons[22], I noted that the Applicant had requested access to submissions made to the National Board by an affected party whose identity was disclosed by the National Board to the Applicant. The submissions apparently provided the affected party's rationale as to why its identity should not be disclosed. The request for those submissions formed no part of the original access request made by the Applicant to the National Board. Nor was the Applicant's request for access to those submissions before the Information Commissioner. In the circumstances, for reasons analogous to those just provided as to why I will not consider late-claimed bases for exemption, I will not further consider the Applicant's supplementary request made to the National Board. That supplementary request and its rejection were not and could not have been before the Information Commissioner. I am satisfied that, if an access request was not and could not have been before the Information Commissioner, then this Court is precluded from consideration of that request on an application under section 41 of the Access Act.
c) Paragraph 21(1)(c) as a basis for exemption
[44] For ease of reference, the opening words of subsection 20(1) and paragraph (c) of that subsection of the Access Act are repeated here:
20. (1) Subject to this section, the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
...
(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or
...
20. (1) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu, sous réserve des autres dispositions du présent article, de refuser la communication de documents contenant_:
...
c) des renseignements dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de causer des pertes ou profits financiers appréciables à un tiers ou de nuire à sa compétitivité;
...
[45] It is not sufficient for an institution from which information such as the names of requesters and the description of requested information is requested to rely upon a general assertion that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party.
[46] In Canada Packers Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al.[23] Justice MacGuigan, for the Court wrote at paragraph [33]:
I take it from the introductory words of s. 20(1), viz., that "the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act . . .", that a decision must be taken with respect to each distinct audit report. Nevertheless, since the judgment that is required involves the measurement of reasonable expectations, in my opinion it is necessary to view each report in the context of other reports requested for release with it, as the total contents of a release are bound to have considerable bearing on the reasonable consequences of its disclosure. [emphasis in the original]
[47] Exemption from disclosure should be justified by affidavit evidence explaining clearly the rationale exempting each record.[24]
[48] Evidence of probable harm must be more than merely speculative. In Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health)[25], Justice Pinard wrote at paragraphs [15] and [16] of his reasons:
The applicant's evidence, here, is that of Mr. Saheb who, in his affidavit, merely states the procedural steps taken by the parties and makes the following general statement:
10. A detailed analysis of the record and documents which Health Canada proposes to allow access to, will show specifically why the information contained therein constitutes confidential information and/or which, if disclosed, may result in prejudice to the competitive position and result in financial loss from the disclosure of trade secrets.
I agree with the respondent that such bare statements are simply an affirmation of the alleged result of disclosure of the information and does [sic] not provide the Court with evidence that such outcomes are reasonably probable. According to my colleague Justice MacKay in SNC-Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works (1994), 79 F.T.R. 113, at page 127:
...The applicant does not demonstrate probable harm as a reasonable expectation from disclosure of the Record and Proposal simply by affirming by affidavit that disclosure "would undoubtedly result in material financial loss and prejudice" to the applicant or would "undoubtedly interfere with contractual and other negotiations of SNC-Lavalin in future business dealings". These affirmations are the very findings the court must make if paragraphs 20)(1)(c) and (d) are to apply. Without further explanation based on evidence that establishes those outcomes as reasonably probable, the court is left to speculate and has no basis to find the harm necessary to support application of these provisions.
[49] I am satisfied that the words of Justices Pinard and MacKay are applicable here.
[50] Mr. James Doyle, Manager, Support Services with the Canada-Newfoundland Board, filed an affidavit on behalf of that Board in the application on file T-2100-00. On the issue of confidentiality, material financial loss and prejudice to competitive position, Mr. Doyle attested:
The issuance of exploration licenses for offshore lands is conducted pursuant to a competitive bidding process. The Board determines which lands will be included in a call for bids. Interested parties may nominate lands for bidding, though the Board is not bound to proceed with a call for bids in respect of lands nominated by interested parties. The identity of the nominee and information concerning the lands nominated remain confidential.
Oil and gas exploration companies attempt to keep confidential the geographic areas of interest to them. This is based upon my knowledge of and experience with offshore oil and gas activities and regulation since 1980. Exploration companies obtain and compile data and information to determine their interest in specific areas and their bidding position. Confidentiality is maintained throughout the process as the identities of unsuccessful bidders are never disclosed. The disclosure of the names and addresses of persons accessing geophysical information and data and the details of geophysical information and data provided to such persons would affect the competitive bidding process by disclosing information which would enable others to determine areas of interest of such persons. Such disclosure would affect the competitive bidding process for exploration licenses. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of such persons.
Based upon my knowledge and experience, it is my information and belief that the Canada Nova Scotia Petroleum Board and other federal and provincial oil and gas regulatory bodies also issue exploration licenses, or the equivalent, pursuant to a competitive bidding process and do not disclose information with respect to the identities of persons accessing released geophysical information and data.
Based upon my knowledge and experience, it is my information and belief that there is an expectation among oil and gas exploration companies based upon past practice and the existing regulatory procedures that information concerning their access to released geophysical and geological information and data will remain confidential and will not be disclosed.[26]
[51] When cross-examined on his affidavit, in response to a question on whether or not the decision to rely on paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act to exempt access to names of individual requesters and the linkage between each requester and the data that the particular requester accessed, Mr. Doyle responded:
The decision was made based on the total data, not on an individual program.[27]
[52] Later in the cross-examination, Mr. Doyle responded:
I don't think that we talked specifically to any one person. When we talk about this competitiveness of process, then we look at [it] from the overall perspective, and that is the perspective of all programs that we have, and the policy decision of the Board was, and continues to be, that we will not release that information because it could result in, in financial loss or gain to another party.[28] [emphasis added]
[53] Mr. Doyle continued on the same subject:
I think in any tendering process, in any tendering process if a company knows that another company is interested, obviously ... I can't say that it will materially effect [sic] a particular company, but it could, and the Board will err, or does err, on the precautionary principle that if it could, then we will not release the information.[29] [emphasis added]
[54] I am satisfied that the foregoing extracts from Mr. Doyle's affidavit and from his cross-examination on that affidavit demonstrate that the Canada-Newfoundland Board acted in error in failing to examine each request on behalf of the Applicant on an individualized basis, in determining to exempt names of requesters and the links between those names and data requested on the basis of a generalized policy and in failing to provide specific evidence that, in each case, a negative effect contemplated by paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act would be reasonably probable and not merely speculative.
[55] I reach the same conclusion with respect to the denial of access by the Canada-Nova Scotia Board. In his affidavit filed on behalf of the Canada-Nova Scotia Board, Michael S. McPhee, General Counsel and Access to Information Coordinator for the Board, attests that the Applicant had earlier requested access to similar information for a limited period of thirty-six (36) months. At the time of that request, the Canada-Nova Scotia Board consulted with each of the third parties whose identity was sought by the Applicant and enquired whether each would consent to disclosure. With one exception, where the consultation letter was returned as undeliverable, all third parties responded indicating they would not consent to the release of their identities. Mr. McPhee attests that the third parties whose identities are sought in the current request are the same as those previously contacted. In the result, the third parties were not recontacted.
[56] In paragraphs 17 to 19 of his affidavit, Mr. McPhee attests:
It is my information and belief that the identities of persons and companies examining or obtaining copies of information filed by GSI is information the disclosure of which would reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party. My information and belief are based on:
a. My personal knowledge of confidentiality measures taken by oil and gas companies in connection with land nominations and bids.
b. Discussions with representatives of most of the oil and gas companies involved with the Nova Scotia offshore area, including discussions with many of the third parties referred to in paragraph 5 above. Several of such third parties, when responding to the letter asking whether they were prepared to consent to the disclosure of their particulars, expressed concern about losing their anonymity because they felt that their competitive positions would be prejudiced if the extent of their activities in relation to a particular portion of the offshore area, or even the fact that they were examining data at all, became a matter of public knowledge.
c. The reluctance of visitors to the CNSOPB's data storage facility to sign the Visitors Book, as evidenced by the small number of entries, as well as comments to this effect made by visitors.
d. The CNSOPB's practice, as described in paragraphs 12.6 and 13.2 of the Guidelines on the Issuance of Exploration Licenses, attached to this affidavit as Exhibit G, of keeping confidential the names of companies nominating lands and, except for the company submitting the winning bid, the names of companies submitting bid on lands.
...
It is my belief that if the information requested by GSI is disclosed, companies will alter their practices by requesting copies of data through agents in order to hide their identities. I base this belief on my knowledge of land bidding practices in Western Canada, which are routinely conducted through land brokers acting for undisclosed principals. If companies start to use agents, the CNSOPB will be disadvantaged in its role as a regulator as it will lose some of the information resulting from direct contact with companies operating in the Nova Scotia offshore area. In addition, the costs of examining data will increase for those companies that feel that they need to make requests through an agent.
...
To the best of my knowledge, the type of information requested by GSI has never been disclosed by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, the National Energy Board, or predecessor regulatory agencies. It is my information and belief that oil and gas companies have an expectation, based on past practice, that their identities will not be disclosed. I base this information and belief on my discussions with many of the third parties referred to in paragraph 5 above.[30]
[57] Under cross-examination, Mr. McPhee, after referring to subsection 24(1) of the Access Act, and thus inferentially, to section 122 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Act, stated:
We didn't make, didn't carry out specific inquiries with each individual - with each of the third parties in terms of how the release of this information would affect their competitive position. And in that respect, I guess we did have some discussions with some of the third parties, and we also relied upon our own knowledge and experience.[31]
[58] In response to a further question on cross-examination, Mr. McPhee stated:
...we all know that the data we deal with is sensitive and confidential, and we would point to these legislative provisions, and that would be, that would be how we would make our decision.[32]
[59] On the basis of Mr. McPhee affidavit and his cross-examination on that affidavit, it would appear that the Canada-Nova Scotia Board ignored the purpose of the Access Act, as reflected in subsection 2(1) of that Act, and simply relied upon its general knowledge of the oil and gas industry and the secretive nature of participants in that industry to speculate, rather than to demonstrate probable harm as a reasonable expectation. The implications of disclosure reflected in the second paragraph quoted from Mr. McPhee's affidavit, and the expectations referred to in the third quoted paragraph are, with great respect, irrelevant.
[60] Finally, on this issue, I turn to the position of the National Board which, in the last analysis, withheld the identity of only one requester of information or data provided by the Applicant. That requester was consulted. It objected to disclosure and explained the basis of its objection. The National Board relied on its knowledge and experience of the industry and on the explanation provided by the requester to maintain an exemption of the requester's identity under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act.
[61] In his affidavit filed on the application on Court file T-2101-00, John McCarthy, a professional engineer and Business Unit Leader, Operations, at the National Board, attested in part as follows at paragraphs 26 to 28:
That based on my knowledge and experience it is reasonable that oil and gas exploration companies seeking access to disclosed geophysical and geological data and information may not want their identities known. To the best of my knowledge, information related to the identities of persons or companies attending at the FIO has never been made public. Oil and gas exploration companies obtain and compile data and information to determine their interest in specific areas and they attempt to keep confidential the geographic areas which are or may be of interest to them as it is critical to their business in a very competitive environment. Disclosure of information concerning the identify [sic] of the individual or company who has borrowed FIO data and information in certain areas could affect the competitive position of the borrowing company because such disclosure could provide other companies and potential competitors with an insight into the borrowing company's interest in an area that is related to a competitive bidding process or potential bidding process and ultimate rights issuance process under the CPRA. Such insight could result in financial loss to the borrowing company because it could be used strategically to affect the bidding process. To the best of my knowledge, the identity of companies involved in a bidding process, which is administered in the Northwest Territories by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is treated as strictly confidential.
...
That is the Respondent's view, based on the Board's understanding of the competitive bidding and rights issuance processes and the confidentiality measures taken by oil and gas exploration companies in connection thereto, and based on the submissions of Party A in respect of this request for information, that information which would identity the company name, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected, in these circumstances, to result in material financial loss to, or could reasonably be expected, in these circumstances, to result in material financial loss to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, the third party within the meaning of s.20(1)(c) of the Access of Information Act.[33] [emphasis added]
[62] Mr. McCarthy annexed to this affidavit as Exhibit "N", the letter from the requester, referred to in paragraph 28 of his affidavit just quoted as "Party A", that reflected the submissions referred to in that paragraph. The substance of that letter reads as follows:
As part of [company name]'s exploration process, we received the data from the NEB to aid us in the evaluation of a Provincial Call for Bids. This Call from [sic] Bids is a highly competitive public process, and we borrowed the referenced data on the understanding that our identity would not be made public.
As of this date we are still evaluating the exploration potential of the Licences awarded subsequent to the Call for Bids, and consider this process to be highly confidential and competitive. The release of the referenced records could seriously compromise our competitive position in this area.[34] [emphasis added]
[63] Once again, I am satisfied that the National Board simply failed to meet the burden on it to demonstrate probable harm of the nature described in paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act as a reasonable expectation from disclosure of the requester's identity. The requester's explanation supporting an exemption in respect of its identity is at a level of generality that is insufficient to discharge the National Board's burden. It speaks of the possibility of serious compromise to its competitive position without demonstrating a "reasonable expectation of serious compromise". Its reliance on its "understanding" that its identity would not be made public was simply not justified. Further, the National Board's own rationale for an exemption is, as with the rationale provided by the two offshore boards, at a level of policy, generality and speculation that simply fails to meet the burden on it to justify an exemption under paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act.
[64] In Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Supply and Services)[35], Justice Martin wrote at paragraph [22]:
What the Applicant has established, in my view, is a possibility of prejudice to its competitive position. However the possibility of prejudice to its competitive position does not meet the test established by MacGuigan J. in Canada Packers Inc. v. The Minister of Agriculture et al. (1988), 87 N.R. 81 (F.C.A.),in which he found that one must interpret the exceptions to access in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 20 of the Act to require a reasonable expectation of probable harm. The expectation of harm which has been shown by the Applicant in this matter has far too large an ingredient of speculation or mere possibility to meet the standard described by MacGuigan J.
Substituting for references to the "Applicant" in the foregoing quotation references to each of the three (3) respondent Boards, I am satisfied that precisely the same might be said on the facts of these three (3) applications.
[65] Based upon the foregoing analysis, none of the three Boards has satisfied me that its reliance on paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Access Act to exempt the identity of one or more requesters and of the link between the identity of each requester and data provided by the Applicant to which the requester was given access, can stand.
d) Privilege - Subsection 24(1) of and Schedule II to the Access Act, Section 22 and subsections 119(2) and (5) of the Canada-Newfoundland Act and provisions equivalent to those provisions of the Canada-Newfoundland Act in the Canada-Nova Scotia Act
[66] For ease of reference, subsection 24(1) of the Access Act and the relevant items out of Schedule II of that Act are reproduced here:
24.(1) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which is restricted by or pursuant to any provision set out in Schedule II.
...
Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act Section 119
Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation
Sections 19 and 122
...
24.(1) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu de refuser la communication de documents contenant des renseignements dont la commmunication est restreinte en vertu d'une disposition figurant à l'annexe II.
...
Loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord atlantique Canada - Terre Neuve Section 119
Loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord - Canada-Nouvelle Écosse sur les hydrocarbures extracotières
Sections 19 and 122
...
[67] The balance of section 24 of the Access Act, that is to say, subsection 24(2), is not relevant for the purpose of these matters.
[68] Section 22, and once again for ease of reference, subsection 119(2) and the relevant portions of subsection 119(5) of the Canada-Newfoundland Act are reproduced here:
22. The Board shall establish, maintain and operate a facility in the Province for the storage and curatorship of all geophysical records and geological and hydrocarbon samples relating to the offshore area.
...
22. L'Office établit et gère un centre, dans la province, où sont conservés les données géologiques et géophysiques et les échantillons d'hydrocarbures extracôtières.
...
119.(2) Subject to section 18 and this section, information or documentation provided for the purposes of this Part or Part III or any regulation made under either Part, whether or not such information or documentation is required to be provided under either Part or any regulation made thereunder, is privileged and shall not knowingly be disclosed without the consent in writing of the person who provided it except for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of either Part or for the purposes of legal proceedings relating to such administration or enforcement.
...
119.(2) Sous réserve de l'article 18 et des autres dispositions du présent article, les renseignements fournis pour l'application de la présente partie, de la partie III ou de leurs règlements, sont, que leur fourniture soit obligatoire ou non, protégés et ne peuvent, sciemment, être communiqués sans le consentement écrit de la personne qui les a fournis, si ce n'est pour l'application de ces lois ou dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires relatives intentées à cet égard.
...
119.(5) Subsection (2) does not apply to the following classes of information or documentation obtained as a result of carrying on a work or activity that is authorized under Part III, namely, information or documentation in respect of
...
(d) geological work or geophysical work performed on or in relation to any portion of the offshore area,
...
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the work;
...
119.(5) Le paragraphe (2) ne vise pas les catégories de renseignements provenant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la partie III et relatives à:
...
d) des travaux de géologie ou de géophysique exécutés dans telle partie de la zone extracôtière ou y ayant trait_:
...
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement;
...
[69] For the purpose of my analysis on this issue, I will focus on the statutory scheme as it relates to the Canada-Newfoundland Board. It was not in dispute before me that precisely the same analysis would be applicable in respect of the Canada-Nova Scotia Board. Further, it was not in dispute before me that the results of geophysical seismic data collection carried out by the Applicant, when carried out in the geographical area within the jurisdiction of the Canada-Newfoundland Board would be "information or documentation obtained as a result of carrying on a work or activity that is authorized under Part III of the Canada-Newfoundland Act that would be "geological work or geophysical work" within the scope of paragraph 119(5)(d) of the Canada-Newfoundland Act.
[70] This portion of my analysis does not extend to a claim of privilege asserted by the National Board. That claim was asserted late. As noted earlier in my analysis, by reason of the late assertion of the privilege claim, I am satisfied that the National Board cannot rely on that claim.
[71] I am satisfied that a determination on this issue turns entirely on the answer to the question: was the name of a requester seeking to borrow information or data provided by the Applicant that is in the library or equivalent office of the Canada-Newfoundland Board, and the link between that name and the information requested, information provided for the purposes of Part II or Part III of the Canada-Newfoundland Act, or any regulation made under either of those Parts, whether or not such information was required to be provided under either such Part or related regulations, or was it information provided to enable the Canada-Newfoundland Board to maintain and operate the facility that it is required by section 22 of the Canada-Newfoundland Act to establish, maintain and operate? I conclude that the information in question was information provided for purposes of the maintenance and operation of the section 22 facility.
[72] In cross-examination of his affidavit filed on behalf of the Canada-Newfoundland Board, Mr. James Doyle acknowledged that, in considering whether or not to release the names of requesters, those acting on behalf of the Board did not have the identities of the requesters before them. He stated:
We worked on the assumption that the request could have been from academic institutions, private individuals, or exploration companies.[36]
[73] When asked whether consideration was given to what harm might befall an academic institution that was a requester if its identity were disclosed to the Applicant, Mr. Doyle responded:
We didn't give it much consideration, I wouldn't think. As I recall we didn't give it a lot of consideration.[37]
[74] Part II of the Canada-Newfoundland Act is entitled "Petroleum Resources". I am satisfied that the substance of that Part is management, administration and enforcement. Part III of the Act is entitled "Petroleum Operations". Section 135.1, which is within Part III, reads as follows:
135.1 The purpose of this Part is to promote, in respect of the exploration for and exploitation of petroleum,
(a) safety, particularly by encouraging persons exploring for and exploiting petroleum to maintain a prudent regime for achieving safety;
(b) the protection of the environment;
(c) the conservation of petroleum resources; and
(d) joint production arrangements.
135.1 La présente partie a pour objet la promotion, en ce qui a trait aux activités de recherche et d'exploitation d'hydrocarbures:
a) de la sécurité, notamment par des mesures encourageant le secteur à prendre les dispositions voulues pour y parvenir;
b) de la protection de l'environment;
c) de la rationalisation de l'exploitation; et
d) de la conclusion d'accords conjoints de production.
[75] I am satisfied that it is beyond doubt that the seismic data provided by the Applicant to the Canada-Newfoundland Board was information or documentation provided for the purposes of Part II or Part III and thus fell within the ambit of the privilege provided by subsection 119(2) of the Act. I am equally satisfied that, by virtue of paragraph 119(5)(d), and in particular subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (d), that privilege expired five (5) years following the date of completion of the seismic work to which the information or documentation related. Thus, on the expiration of that five (5) year period, it was entirely open to the Canada-Newfoundland Board to make such information or documentation available to a requester.
[76] That being said, I am equally satisfied that the names of requesters and the link between those names and the data requested, is of an entirely different order. As noted by Mr. Doyle in a passage from his cross-examination quoted above, requesters might have been academic institutions, private individuals, or exploration companies. Indeed, it is entirely possible that they might have been institutions or organizations that were neither academic in nature or exploration companies. The provision of their names as requesters, and the link of their names to requested information, could hardly be said to be, at least in many cases, information provided for the purpose of management of petroleum resources, of administration or enforcement of the statutory scheme or for the safe and prudent conduct of petroleum operations.
[77] By contrast, section 22 of the Canada-Newfoundland Act places on the Canada-Newfoundland Board an obligation to establish, maintain and operate a facility in the nature of a library "for the storage and curatorship of all geophysical records and geological and hydrocarbon samples relating to the offshore area". It was not in dispute before me that information and data provided to the Canada-Newfoundland Board by the Applicant fell within the scope of the Board's obligation under section 22. Maintenance and operation of a facility in the nature of a library, I am satisfied, encompasses an obligation, where information is borrowed from that library, and only instance where information was borrowed are at issue in these matters, to record who has borrowed the information and what the information was that was borrowed. In the absence of such an interpretation, the Board would be at severe risk of losing its capacity to fulfill its obligations under section 22.
[78] Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the names of requesters and the link between those names and the data requested was information provided to the Canada-Newfoundland Board for the purpose of section 22 of the Canada-Newfoundland Act and not for the purposes of either Part II or Part III of that Act. Thus, it was not information subject to section 119 of the Act. In the result, it was not information exempt from disclosure by virtue of subsection 24(1) of, and the related item in, Schedule II to the Access Act.
[79] As earlier indicated, I am satisfied that the foregoing analysis applies equally in respect of names of requesters and related links to information requested under the Canada-Nova Scotia Act.
e) Personal Information: Subsection 19(1) of the Access Act
[80] The Canada-Newfoundland Board, and only the Canada-Newfoundland Board, claimed exemption for the information at issue on the ground that it is personal information within the ambit of subsection 19(1) of the Access Act. Once again for ease of reference, that subsection is repeated here:
19.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act.
19.(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu de refuser la communication de documents contenant les renseignements personnels visés à l'article 3 de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.
Subsection 19(2) of the Access Act permits disclosure of personal information where, among other circumstances, and this is the only circumstance that might be applicable here, the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.[38]
[81] The relevant portions of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Privacy Act read as follows:
3. In this Act,
...
"personal information" means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,
...
f) correspondence sent to a government institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to such correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
...
(i) the name of the individual where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name itself would reveal information about the individual,
...
3. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi.
...
« renseignements personnels » Les renseignements, quels que soient leur forme et leur support, concernant un individu identifiable, notamment_:
...
f) toute correspondance de nature, implicitement ou explicitement, privée ou confidentielle envoyée par lui à une institution fédérale, ainsi que les réponses de
l'institution dans la mesure où elles révèlent le contenu de la correspondance de l'expéditeur;
...
i) son nom lorsque celui-ci est mentionné avec d'autres renseignements personnels le concernant ou lorsque la seule divulgation du nom révélerait des renseignements à son sujet;
...
[82] The Canada-Newfoundland Board is a "government institution" for the purposes of the Privacy Act. Section 8 of the Privacy Act is, I am satisfied, not relevant for the purposes of this matter.
[83] Counsel for the Applicant noted that there was no evidence whatsoever before me that any of the requesters whose names are being sought by the Applicant is an individual. Further, counsel assured the Court that, where a request was made for information relevant to these matters to the Canada-Newfoundland Board that disclosed, not only the name of the requester, but the name of an individual who was the contact person for the requester, the Applicant was not interested in the name of that individual. By contrast, if any of the requesters was in fact an individual, the Applicant is seeking the name of that individual and urges that disclosing the name of the individual would disclose "nothing personal about that individual".[39]
[84] Tridel Corp v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.[40], is authority for the proposition that a corporation cannot be "an identifiable individual" for the purposes of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Privacy Act and cannot therefore "take advantage" of section 19 of the Access Act. At paragraph [22] of his reasons in Tridel Corp., Justice Campbell wrote:
Thus, for Tridel Corporation to take advantage of s.19 it must somehow qualify as an "identifiable individual" and to do so has argued that his [sic] term may include anything, including a corporation with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, so long as it has sufficient distinctive characteristics which separate it from a general pool. CMHC argues that corporations do not have a race, colour, religion, personal records and opinions, and therefore, the provisions concern information about people.
On this issue, Justice Campbell concludes at paragraph [24] of his reasons:
I have no doubt that "an identifiable individual" is a human being, since it is only a human being that can possess all the very personal characteristics and experiences enumerated in the subsections quoted [the paragraphs forming part of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Privacy Act]. ...
[85] In Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)[41], Justice Dawson wrote at paragraphs [19] to [21]:
I then move to the general opening words of the definition of "personal information" found in section 3 of the Privacy Act. It follows, in my view, from that expansive definition alone that an individual's views or opinions about Mr. Pirie and the fact that it was that individual's view or opinion would be personal information of Mr. Pirie. In addition, the fact of the holding of the opinion and the opinion itself would also be personal information of the individual, if the individual was identifiable.
However, as noted in E. A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes, ...
Today there is only one principle or approach, [to statutory interpretation] namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
It is therefore necessary to review the balance of the definition of "personal information", that is the enumerated exemplifiers, to ensure that the above conclusion, based upon the opening words of the definition alone, accords with the balance of the definition. [citation omitted]
[86] Against the foregoing basis of interpretation, on the evidence before me, I find no basis whatsoever to conclude that the names of requesters linked to the information requested would constitute personal information. If the requesters are corporations or unincorporated bodies, they are not "identifiable individuals". If the requesters are "identifiable individuals" and are acting only as employees of corporations or the like, and nothing more than their position or title with the corporation or other organization is identified, I am satisfied that disclosure of their names together with that information alone does not constitute disclosure of "personal information". I adopt the submission on behalf of the Applicant that the title or job identifier of an individual employed by a corporation or other organization does not, if disclosed, amount to disclosure of "personal information" in and of itself.
[87] Based on the foregoing brief analysis, the Canada-Newfoundland Board cannot succeed on its claim for an exemption from disclosure based on subsection 19(1) of the Access Act.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELIEF
[88] In summary, I have concluded that neither the National Board nor the Canada-Nova Scotia Board can rely upon grounds for relief asserted only after claims by the Applicant to access were asserted and rejected and complaints in relation to those rejections were made by the Applicant to the Access Commissioner who had investigated the complaints and responded to them. Similarly, I have concluded that the Applicant cannot incorporate into the proceeding instituted by it against the National Board a claim for access to a document not originally asserted and not even asserted at the time the Applicant's application with respect to the National Board was asserted before this Court.
[89] Apart from the foregoing, I further conclude that none of the Boards can succeed in resisting disclosure of the names of requesters and the link between those names and the information requested on any of the grounds for exemption asserted by it. Put another way, I conclude that the Applicant is entitled to disclosure to it of the names of those who requested of a Board the release of information or data provided to that Board by the Applicant and the link between each such requester and the data requested. It goes without saying, of course, that the disclosure that I will, in the result, order is restricted to the names of requesters and the links that remain known to the relevant Board.
[90] On each of three (3) applications before the Court, an Order will go requiring the respondent to disclose to the Applicant the name of each requester of information or data provided to the Board by the Applicant, where the name of the requester is known to the Board, together with an appropriate linkage between the identity of each requester and the information or data provided to him, her or it.
COSTS
[91] Section 53 of the Access Act provides direction on the issue of costs on applications such as those now before the Court while reserving a degree of discretion to the Court. At the close of the hearing of these matters, counsel addressed the question of costs, particularly in the light of the fact that certain costs savings were achieved through the consolidation of these applications. I encourage counsel to attempt to reach an agreement on the issue and quantum of costs. If agreement is reached, and counsel so wish, while preserving the Court's discretion, I would be pleased to consider issuing supplementary orders implementing the agreement.
[92] In the event that counsel are unable to reach agreement, counsel for the Applicant should serve and file with the Court, within sixty (60) days of the date of my order, submissions on the issue and quantum of costs. Thereafter, counsel for each of the respondent's will have fifteen (15) days to serve and file responding submissions. Thereafter, unless counsel for the Applicant seeks leave of the Court to provide reply submissions, I will issue supplementary orders as to costs.
[93] At any stage during the process of consideration of costs issues, I would be pleased to consider any request to reconvene by teleconference to facilitate a final disposition.
________________________________
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
April 25, 2003
SCHEDULE "A"
119. (1) In this section,
"delineation well" means a well that is so located in relation to another well penetrating an accumulation of petroleum that there is a reasonable expectation that another portion of that accumulation will be penetrated by the first-mentioned well and that the drilling is necessary in order to determine the commercial value of the accumulation;
"development well" means a well that is so located in relation to another well penetrating an accumulation of petroleum that it is considered to be a well or part of a well drilled for the purpose of production or observation or for the injection or disposal of fluid into or from the accumulation:
"engineering research or feasibility study" includes work undertaken to facilitate the design or to analyse the viability of engineering technology, systems or schemes to be used in the exploration for or the development, production or transportation of petroleum in the offshore area;
"environmental study" means work pertaining to the measurement or statistical evaluation of the physical, chemical and biological elements of the lands, oceans or coastal zones, including winds, waves, tides, currents, precipitation, ice cover and movement, icebergs, pollution effects, flora and fauna both onshore and offshore, human activity and habitation and any related matters;
"experimental project" means work or activity involving the utilization of methods or equipment that are untried or unproven;
"exploratory well" means a well drilled on a geological feature on which a significant discovery has not been made;
"geological work" means work, in the field or laboratory, involving the collection, examination, processing or other analysis of lithological, paleontological or geochemical materials recovered from the seabed or subsoil of any portion of the offshore area and includes the analysis and interpretation of mechanical well logs;
119. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article.
« puits de délimitation » Puits dont l'emplacement est tel par rapport à un autre puits pénétrant un gisement d'hydrocarbures que l'on peut vraisemblablement s'attendre à ce qu'il pénètre une autre partie de ce gisement, et que le forage est nécessaire pour en déterminer la valeur exploitable.
« puits d'exploitation » Puits dont l'emplacement est tel par rapport à un autre puits pénétrant un gisement d'hydrocarbures qu'il est considéré comme étant un puits complet ou partiel foré aux fins soit de production ou d'observation soit d'injection ou de refoulement des fluides à partir du gisement ou vers celui-ci.
« recherches ou études techniques » Y sont assimilés les travaux destinés à faciliter la conception ou à analyser la viabilité des techniques, méthodes ou plans à mettre en oeuvre sur la recherche l'exploitation, la production ou le transport des hydrocarbures dans la zone extracôtière.
« études de l'environnement » Travaux relatifs aux mesures ou à l'évaluation statistique des éléments physiques, chimiques et biologiques des terres, des régions côtières ou des océans, y compris les vents, les vagues, les marées, les courants, les précipitations, la banquise et ses mouvements, les icebergs, les effets de la pollution, la flore et la faune marines et terrestres, l'habitation et les activités humaines et tous autres sujets connexes.
« opération expérimentale » Activité comportant l'emploi de procédés ou de matériel qui n'ont pas été essayés ni éprouvés.
« puits d'exploration » Puits foré sur un horizon géologique qui n'a pas fait l'objet d'une découverte importante.
« travaux de géologie » Travaux comportant la collecte, l'examen et le traitement ou autres analyses, sur le terrain ou en laboratoire, des échantillons lithologiques, paléontologiques ou géochimiques prélevés en surface ou dans le fond ou le sous-sol marins de la zone extracôtière. S'entend en outre de l'analyse et de l'interprétation de diagraphies.
"geophysical work" means work involving the indirect measurement of the physical properties of rocks in order to determine the depth, thickness, structural configuration or history of deposition thereof and includes the processing, analysis and interpretation of material or data obtained from such work;
"geotechnical work" means work, in the field or laboratory, undertaken to determine the physical properties of materials recovered from the seabed or subsoil of any portion of the offshore area;
"well site seabed survey" means a survey pertaining to the nature of the seabed or subsoil of any portion of the offshore area in the area of the proposed drilling site in respect of a well and to the conditions of those portions of the offshore area that may affect the safety or efficiency of drilling operations;
"well termination date" means the date on which a well or test hole has been abandoned, completed or suspended in accordance with any applicable regulations respecting the drilling for petroleum made under Part III.
(2) Subject to section 18 and this section, information or documentation provided for the purposes of this Part or Part III or any regulation made under either Part, whether or not such information or documentation is required to be provided under either Part or any regulation made thereunder, is privileged and shall not knowingly be disclosed without the consent in writing of the person who provided it except for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of either Part or for the purposes of legal proceedings relating to such administration or enforcement.
(3) No person shall be required to produce or give evidence relating to any information or documentation that is privileged under subsection (2) in connection with any legal proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this Part or Part III.
4) For greater certainty, this section does not apply to a document that has been registered under Division VIII.
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply to the following classes of information or documentation obtained as a result of carrying on a work or activity that is authorized under Part III, namely, information or documentation in respect of
(a) an exploratory well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if two years have passed since the well termination date of that well;
(b) a delineation well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if the later of
« travaux de géophysique » Travaux comportant la mesure indirecte des propriétés physiques des roches afin d'en déterminer la profondeur, l'épaisseur, la configuration structurale ou l'historique sédimentaire. S'entend en outre du traitement, de l'analyse et de l'interprétation des éléments ou des données fournis par ces travaux.
« travaux de géotechnique » Travaux comportant l'analyse, sur le terrain ou en laboratoire, des propriétés physiques des échantillons prélevés, en surface ou du fond ou du sous-sol marins de la zone.
« _levé marin_ » Étude portant sur la nature du fond ou du sous-sol marins de toute partie de la zone située dans le secteur prévu pour le forage d'un puits et sur les éléments, à prendre en compte à cet égard, susceptible d'influer sur la sécurité ou l'efficacité du forage.
« date d'abandon du forage » Date à laquelle les travaux de forage ont été délaissés, achevés ou interrompus conformément aux règlements applicables en matière de forage pris sous le régime de la partie III.
(2) Sous réserve de l'article 18 et des autres dispositions du présent article, les renseignements fournis pour l'application de la présente partie, de la partie III ou de leurs règlements, sont, que leur fourniture soit obligatoire ou non, protégés et ne peuvent, sciemment, être communiqués sans le consentement écrit de la personne qui les a fournis, si ce n'est pour l'application de ces lois ou dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires relatives intentées à cet égard.
(3) Nul ne peut être tenu de communiquer les renseignements protégés au titre du paragraphe (2) au cours de procédures judiciaires qui ne visent pas l'application de la présente partie ou de la partie III.
(4) Il demeure entendu que le présent article ne vise pas les documents enregistrés au titre de la section VIII.
(5) Le paragraphe (2) ne vise pas les catégories de renseignements provenant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la partie III et relatives à _:
a) un puits d'exploration, si les renseignements proviennent effectivement du forage du puits et si deux ans se sont écoulés après la date d'abandon du forage;
b) un puits de délimitation, s'ils proviennent du forage du puits et une fois écoulée la dernière des périodes suivantes, à savoir deux ans après la date d'abandon du forage du puits d'exploration en cause ou quatre-vingt-dix jours après la date d'abandon du forage du puits de délimitation;
(i) two years since the well termination date of the relevant exploratory well, and
(ii) ninety days since the well termination date of the delineation well,
have passed;
(c) a development well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if the later of
(i) two years since the well termination date of the relevant exploratory well, and
(ii) sixty days since the well termination date of the development well,
have passed;
(d) geological work or geophysical work performed on or in relation to any portion of the offshore area,
(i) in the case of a well site seabed survey where the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the work;
(e) any engineering research or feasibility study or experimental project, including geotechnical work, carried out on or in relation to any portion of the offshore area,
(i) where it relates to a well and the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the research, study or project or after the reversion of that portion of the offshore area to Crown reserve areas, whichever occurs first;
(f) any contingency plan formulated in respect of emergencies arising as a result of any work or activity authorized under Part III;
(g) diving work, weather observation or the status of operational activities or of the development of or production from a pool or field;
(g.1) accidents, incidents or petroleum spills, to the extent necessary to permit a person or body to produce and to distribute or publish a report for the administration of this Act in respect of the accident, incident or spill;
(h) any study funded from an account established under subsection 76(1) of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, if the study has been completed; and
c) un puits d'exploitation, s'ils proviennent effectivement du forage du puits et une fois écoulée la dernière des périodes suivantes, à savoir deux ans après la date d'abandon du puits d'exploration en cause ou soixante jours après la date d'abandon du forage du puits d'exploitation;
d) des travaux de géologie ou de géophysique exécutés dans telle partie de la zone extracôtière ou y ayant trait_:
(i) s'agissant d'un levé marin pour un puits foré, après la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement;
e) des recherches ou études techniques ou des opérations expérimentales, y compris des travaux de géotechnique, exécutés dans telle partie de la zone extracôtière ou y ayant trait_:
(i) si elles portent sur un puits foré après l'expiration de la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement ou après que ces terres sont devenues réserves de l'État;
f) un plan visant les situations d'urgence résultant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la partie III;
g) des travaux de plongée, des observations météorologiques, l'état d'avancement des travaux, l'exploitation ou la production d'un gisement ou d'un champ;
g.1) des accidents, des incidents ou des écoulements de pétrole dans la mesure où ces renseignements sont nécessaires pour l'établissement et la publication d'un rapport à cet égard dans le cadre de la présente loi;
h) des études achevées financées sur le compte ouvert au titre du paragraphe 76(1) de la Loi fédérale sur les hydrocarbures;
(i) an environmental study, other than a study referred to in paragraph (h),
(i) where it relates to a well and the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, if five years have passed since the completion of the study.
...
122. (1) In this section,
"delineation well" means a well that is so located in relation to another well penetrating an accumulation of petroleum that there is a reasonable expectation that another portion of that accumulation will be penetrated by the first-mentioned well and that the drilling is necessary in order to determine the commercial value of the accumulation;
"development well" means a well that is so located in relation to another well penetrating an accumulation of petroleum that it is considered to be a well or part of a well drilled for the purpose of production or observation or for the injection or disposal of fluid into or from the accumulation;
"engineering research or feasibility study" includes work undertaken to facilitate the design or to analyse the viability of engineering technology, systems or schemes to be used in the exploration for or the development, production or transportation of petroleum in the offshore area;
"environmental study" means work pertaining to the measurement or statistical evaluation of the physical, chemical and biological elements of the lands, oceans or coastal zones, including winds, waves, tides, currents, precipitation, ice cover and movement, icebergs, pollution effects, flora and fauna both onshore and offshore, human activity and habitation and any related matters;
"experimental project" means work or activity involving the utilization of methods or equipment that are untried or unproven;
"exploratory well" means a well drilled on a geological feature on which a significant discovery has not been made;
i) d'autres types d'études de l'environnement_:
(i) s'agissant d'un puits foré, après l'expiration de la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou de la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, lorsque cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis leur achèvement.
...
122. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article.
« puits de délimitation » Puits dont l'emplacement est tel par rapport à un autre puits pénétrant un gisement d'hydrocarbures que l'on peut vraisemblablement s'attendre à ce qu'il pénètre une autre partie de ce gisement, et que le forage est nécessaire pour en déterminer la valeur exploitable.
« puits d'exploitation » Puits dont l'emplacement est tel par rapport à un autre puits pénétrant un gisement d'hydrocarbures qu'il est considéré comme étant un puits complet ou partiel foré aux fins soit de production ou d'observation soit d'injection ou de refoulement des fluides à partir du gisement ou vers celui-ci.
« recherches ou études techniques » Y sont assimilés les travaux destinés à faciliter la conception ou à analyser la viabilité des techniques, méthodes ou plans à mettre en oeuvre pour la recherche, l'exploitation, la production ou le transport des hydrocarbures dans la zone extracôtière.
« études de l'environnement » Travaux relatifs aux mesures ou à l'évaluation statistique des éléments physiques, chimiques et biologiques des terres, des régions côtières ou des océans, y compris les vents, les vagues, les marées, les courants, les précipitations, la banquise et ses mouvements, les icebergs, les effets de la pollution, la flore et la faune marines et terrestres, l'habitation et les activités humaines et tous autres sujets connexes.
« opération expérimentale » Activité comportant l'emploi de procédés ou de matériel qui n'ont pas été essayés ni éprouvés.
« puits d'exploration » Puits foré sur un horizon géologique qui n'a pas fait l'objet d'une découverte importante.
"geological work" means work, in the field or laboratory, involving the collection, examination, processing or other analysis of lithological, paleontological or geochemical materials recovered from the surface or subsurface or the seabed or its subsoil of any portion of the offshore area and includes the analysis and interpretation of mechanical well logs;
"geophysical work" means work involving the indirect measurement of the physical properties of rocks in order to determine the depth, thickness, structural configuration or history of deposition thereof and includes the processing, analysis and interpretation of material or data obtained from such work;
"geotechnical work" means work, in the field or laboratory, undertaken to determine the physical properties of materials recovered from the surface or subsurface or the seabed or its subsoil of any portion of the offshore area;
"well site seabed survey" means a survey pertaining to the nature of the surface or subsurface or the seabed or its subsoil of any portion of the offshore area in the area of the proposed drilling site in respect of a well and to the conditions of those portions of the offshore area that may affect the safety or efficiency of drilling operations;
"well termination date" means the date on which a well or test hole has been abandoned, completed or suspended in accordance with any applicable regulations respecting the drilling for petroleum made under Part III.
(2) Subject to section 19 and this section, information or documentation provided for the purposes of this Part or Part III or any regulation made under either Part, whether or not such information or documentation is required to be provided under either Part or any regulation made thereunder, is privileged and shall not knowingly be disclosed without the consent in writing of the person who provided it except for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of either Part or for the purposes of legal proceedings relating to such administration or enforcement.
(3) No person shall be required to produce or give evidence relating to any information or documentation that is privileged under subsection (2) in connection with any legal proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this
« travaux de géologie » Travaux comportant la collecte, l'examen et le traitement ou autres analyses, sur le terrain ou en laboratoire, des échantillons lithologiques, paléontologiques ou géochimiques prélevés en surface ou dans le fond ou le sous-sol marins de la zone extracôtière. S'entend en outre de l'analyse et de l'interprétation de diagraphies.
« travaux de géophysique » Travaux comportant la mesure indirecte des propriétés physiques des rochés afin d'en déterminer la profondeur, l'épaisseur, la configuration structurale ou l'historique sédimentaire. S'entend en outre du traitement, de l'analyse et de l'interprétation des éléments ou des données fournis par ces travaux.
« travaux de géotechnique » Travaux comportant l'analyse, sur le terrain ou en laboratoire, des propriétés physiques des échantillons prélevés, en surface ou du fond ou du sous-sol marins de la zone.
« levé marin » Étude portant sur la nature du sol, du sous-sol et du fond ou du sous-sol marins de toute partie de la zone située dans le secteur prévu pour le forage d'un puits et sur les éléments, à prendre en compte à cet égard, susceptibles d'influencer sur la sécurité ou l'efficacité du forage.
« date d'abandon du forage » Date à laquelle les travaux de forage ont été délaissés, achevés ou interrompus conformément aux règlements applicables en matière de forage pris sous le régime de la partie III.
(2) Sous réserve de l'article 19 et des autres dispositions du présent article, les renseignements fournis pour l'application de la présente partie, de la partie III ou de leurs règlements, sont, que leur fourniture soit obligatoire ou non, protégés et ne peuvent, sciemment, être communiqués sans le consentement écrit de la personne qui les a fournis, si ce n'est pour l'application de ces lois ou dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires relatives intentées à cet égard.
(3) Nul ne peut être tenu de communiquer les renseignements protégés au titre du paragraphe (2) au cours de procédures judiciaires qui ne visent pas l'application de la présente partie ou de la partie III.
(4) For greater certainty, this section does not apply to a document that has been registered under Division VIII
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply to the following classes of information or documentation obtained as a result of carrying on a work or activity that is authorized under Part III, namely, information or documentation in respect of
(a) an exploratory well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if two years have passed since the well termination date of that well;
(b) a delineation well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if the later of.
(4) Il demeure entendu que le présent article ne vise pas les documents enregistrés au titre de la section VIII.
(5) Le paragraphe (2) ne vise pas les catégories de renseignements provenant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la partie III et relatives à _:
a) un puits d'exploration, si les renseignements proviennent effectivement du forage du puits et si deux ans se sont écoulés après la date d'abandon du forage;
b) un puits de délimitation, s'ils proviennent du forage du puits et une fois écoulée la dernière des périodes suivantes, à savoir deux ans après la date d'abandon du forage du puits d'exploration en cause ou quatre-vingt-dix jours après la date d'abandon du forage du puits de délimitation;
(i) two years since the well termination date of the relevant exploratory well, and
(ii) ninety days since the well termination date of the delineation well,
have passed;
(c) a development well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if the later of
(i) two years since the well termination date of the relevant exploratory well, and
(ii) sixty days since the well termination date of the development well,
have passed;
(d) geological work or geophysical work performed on or in relation to any portion of the offshore area,
(i) in the case of a well site seabed survey where the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c)is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the work;
(e) any engineering research or feasibility study or experimental project, including geotechnical work, carried out on or in relation to any portion of the offshore area,
(i) where it relates to a well and the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the research, study or project or after the reversion of that portion of the offshore area to Crown reserve areas, whichever occurs first;
c) un puits d'exploitation, s'ils proviennent effectivement du forage du puits et une fois écoulée la dernière des périodes suivantes, à savoir deux ans après la date d'abandon du puits d'exploration en cause ou soixante jours après la date d'abandon du forage du puits d'exploitation;
d) des travaux de géologie ou de géophysique exécutés dans telle partie de la zone extracôtière ou y ayant trait_:
(i) s'agissant d'un levé marin pour un puits foré, après la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement ou après que ces terres sont devenues réserves de l'État;
e) des recherches ou études techniques ou des opérations expérimentales, y compris des travaux de géotechnique, exécutés dans telle partie de la zone extracôtière ou y ayant trait_:
(i) si elles portent sur un puits foré après l'expiration de la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement ou après que ces terres sont devenues réserves de l'État;
f) any contingency plan formulated in respect of emergencies arising as a result of any work or activity authorized under Part III;
(g) diving work, weather observation or the status of operational activities or of the development of or production from a pool or field;
(g.1) accidents, incidents or petroleum spills, to the extent necessary to permit a person or body to produce and to distribute or publish a report for the administration of this Act in respect of the accident, incident or spill;
(h) any study funded from an account established under subsection 76(1) of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, if the study has been completed; and
(i) an environmental study, other than a study referred to in paragraph (h),
(i) where it relates to a well and the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, if five years have passed since the completion of the study.
...
101. (1) In this section,
"delineation well" means a well that is so located in relation to another well penetrating an accumulation of petroleum that there is a reasonable expectation that another portion of that accumulation will be penetrated by the first-mentioned well and that the drilling is necessary in order to determine the commercial value of the accumulation;
"development well" means a well that is so located in relation to another well penetrating an accumulation of petroleum that it is considered to be a well or part of a well drilled for the purpose of production or observation or for the injection or disposal of fluid into or from the accumulation;
"engineering research or feasibility study" includes work undertaken to facilitate the design or to analyse the viability of engineering technology, systems or schemes to be used in the exploration for or the development, production or transportation of petroleum on frontier lands;
f) un plan visant les situations d'urgence résultant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la partie III;
g) des travaux de plongée, des observations météorologiques, l'état d'avancement des travaux, l'exploitation ou la production d'un gisement ou d'un champ;
g.1) des accidents, des incidents ou des écoulements de pétrole dans la mesure où ces renseignements sont nécessaires pour l'établissement et la publication d'un rapport à cet égard dans le cadre d'une loi fédérale;
h) des études achevées financées sur le compte ouvert au titre du paragraphe 76(1) de la Loi fédérale sur les hydrocarbures;
i) d'autre types d'études de l'environnement_:
(i) s'agissant d'un puits foré, après l'expiration de la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou de la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, lorsque cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis leur achèvement.
...
101. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article.
« puits de délimitation » Puits dont l'emplacement est tel par rapport à un autre puits pénétrant un gisement d'hydrocarbures que l'on peut vraisemblablement s'attendre à ce qu'il pénètre une autre partie de ce gisement, et que le forage est nécessaire pour en déterminer la valeur exploitable.
« puits d'exploitation » Puits dont l'emplacement est tel par rapport à un autre puits pénétrant un gisement d'hydrocarbures qu'il est considéré comme étant un puits complet ou partiel foré aux fins soit de production ou d'observation, soit d'injection ou de refoulement des fluides à partir du gisement ou vers celui-ci.
« recherches ou études techniques » Y sont assimilés les travaux destinés à faciliter la conception ou à analyser la viabilité des techniques, méthodes ou plans à mettre en oeuvre pour la recherche, l'exploitation, la production ou le transport des hydrocarbures dans les terres domaniales.
"environmental study" means work pertaining to the measurement or statistical evaluation of the physical, chemical and biological elements of the lands, oceans or coastal zones, including winds, waves, tides, currents, precipitation, ice cover and movement, icebergs, pollution effects, flora and fauna both onshore and offshore, human activity and habitation and any related matters;
"experimental project" means work or activity involving the utilization of methods or equipment that are untried or unproven;
"exploratory well" means a well drilled on a geological feature on which a significant discovery has not been made;
"geological work" means work, in the field or laboratory, involving the collection, examination, processing or other analysis of lithological, paleontological or geochemical materials recovered from the surface or subsurface or the seabed or its subsoil of any frontier lands and includes the analysis and interpretation of mechanical well logs;
"geophysical work" means work involving the indirect measurement of the physical properties of rocks in order to determine the depth, thickness, structural configuration or history of deposition thereof and includes the processing, analysis and interpretation of material or data obtained from such work;
"geotechnical work" means work, in the field or laboratory, undertaken to determine the physical properties of materials recovered from the surface or subsurface or the seabed or its subsoil of any frontier lands;
"well site seabed survey" means a survey pertaining to the nature of the surface or subsurface or the seabed or its subsoil of any frontier lands in the area of the proposed drilling site in respect of a well and to the conditions of those lands that may affect the safety or efficiency of drilling operations;
"well termination date" means the date on which a well or test hole has been abandoned, completed or suspended in accordance with any applicable regulations respecting the drilling for petroleum made under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.
« études de l'environnement » Travaux relatifs aux mesures ou à l'évaluation statistique des éléments physiques, chimiques et biologiques des terres, des régions côtières ou des océans, y compris les vents, les vagues, les marées, les courants, les précipitations, la banquise et ses mouvements, les icebergs, les effets de la pollution, la flore et la faune marines et terrestres, l'habitation et les activités humaines et tous autres sujets connexes.
« opération expérimentale » Activité comportant l'emploi de procédés ou de matériel qui n'ont pas été essayés ni éprouvés.
« puits d'exploration » Puits foré sur un horizon géologique qui n'a pas fait l'objet d'une découverte importante.
« travaux de géologie » Travaux comportant la collecte, l'examen et le traitement ou autres analyses, sur le terrain ou en laboratoire, des échantillons lithologiques, paléontologiques ou géochimiques prélevés en surface ou dans le sous-sol marins des terres domaniales. S'entend en outre de l'analyse et de l'interprétation de diagraphies.
« travaux de géophysique » Travaux comportant la mesure indirecte des propriétés physiques des roches afin d'en déterminer la profondeur, l'épaisseur, la configuration structurale ou l'historique sédimentaire. S'entend en outre du traitement, de l'analyse et de l'interprétation des éléments ou des données fournies par ces travaux.
« travaux de géotechnique » Travaux comportant l'analyse, sur le terrain ou en laboratoire, des propriétés physiques des échantillons prélevés, en surface ou du sous-sol ou en surface ou du fond ou du sous-sol marins des terres domaniales.
« levé marin » Étude portant sur la nature du sol, du sous-sol et du fond ou du sous-sol marins des terres domaniales situées dans le secteur prévu pour le forage d'un puits et sur les éléments, à prendre en compte à cet égard, susceptibles d'influencer sur la sécurité ou l'efficacité du forage.
« _date d'abandon du forage_ » Date à laquelle les travaux de forage ont été délaissés, achevés ou interrompus conformément aux règlements applicables en matière de forage pris sous le régime de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada.
(2) Subject to this section, information or documentation is privileged if it is provided for the purposes of this Act or the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act or any regulation made under either Act, or for the purposes of Part II.1 of the National Energy Board Act, whether or not the information or documentation is required to be provided.
(2.1) Subject to this section, information or documentation that is privileged under subsection (2) shall not knowingly be disclosed without the consent in writing of the person who provided it, except for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of this Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act or Part II.1 of the National Energy Board Act or for the purposes of legal proceedings relating to its administration or enforcement.
(3) No person shall be required to produce or give evidence relating to any information or documentation that is privileged under subsection (2) in connection with any legal proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act or Part II.1 of the National Energy Board Act.
(4) For greater certainty, this section does not apply to a document that has been registered under Part VIII.
(5) Information or documentation that is privileged under subsection (2) may be disclosed to any government of a province or to any organization representing any aboriginal people of Canada, where such disclosure is made pursuant to an agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of that province or that organization respecting resource management and revenue sharing in relation to activities respecting the exploration for or the production of petroleum carried out on any frontier lands.
(6) The recipient of information or documentation disclosed pursuant to an agreement referred to in subsection (5) shall not disclose that information or documentation except as otherwise provided in this section.
(7) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the following classes of information or documentation obtained as a result of carrying on a work or activity that is authorized under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, namely, information or documentation in respect of
(a) an exploratory well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if two years have passed since the well termination date of that well;
(2) Sous réserve des autres dispositions du présent article, les renseignements fournis pour l'application de la présente loi, de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada, de leurs règlements ou de la partie II.1 de la Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie sont protégés, que leur fourniture soit obligatoire ou non.
(2.1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions du présent article, les renseignements protégés au titre du paragraphe (2) ne peuvent, sciemment, être communiqués sans le consentement écrit de la personne qui les a fournis, si ce n'est pour l'application de la présente loi, de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada ou de la partie II.1 de la Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie ou dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires à cet égard.
(3) Nul ne peut être tenu de communiquer les renseignements protégés au titre du paragraphe (2) au cours de procédures judiciaires qui ne visent pas l'application de la présente loi, de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada ou de la partie II.1 de la Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie.
(4) Il demeure entendu que le présent article ne vise pas les documents enregistrés au titre de la partie VIII.
(5) Les renseignements peuvent être communiqués à tout gouvernement provincial ou à tout organisme représentant les peuples autochtones du Canada à la suite d'accord entre ceux-ci et le gouvernement fédéral portant sur la gestion des ressources et le partage des revenus liés à des activités de prospection ou de production d'hydrocarbures effectuées sur les terres domaniales.
(6) Le destinataire des renseignements visés au paragraphe (5) ne peut les communiquer que sous le régime du présent article.
(7) Le paragraphe (2) ne vise pas les catégories de renseignements provenant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada et relatives à _:
a) un puits d'exploration, si les renseignements proviennent effectivement du forage du puits et si deux ans se sont écoulés après la date d'abandon du forage;
(b) a delineation well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if the later of
(i) two years since the well termination date of the relevant exploratory well, and
(ii) ninety days since the well termination date of the delineation well,
have passed;
(c) a development well, where the information or documentation is obtained as a direct result of drilling the well and if the later of
(i) two years since the well termination date of the relevant exploratory well, and
(ii) sixty days since the well termination date of the development well,
have passed;
(d) geological work or geophysical work performed on or in relation to any frontier lands,
(i) in the case of a well site seabed survey where the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the work;
(e) any engineering research or feasibility study or experimental project, including geotechnical work, carried out on or in relation to any frontier lands,
(i) where it relates to a well and the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, after the expiration of five years following the date of completion of the research, study or project or after the reversion of the lands to Crown reserve lands, whichever occurs first;
(f) any contingency plan formulated in respect of emergencies arising as a result of any work or activity authorized under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act;
(g) diving work, weather observations or the status of operational activities or of the development of or production from a pool or field;
(g.1) accidents, incidents or petroleum spills, to the extent necessary to permit a person or body to produce and to distribute or publish a report for the administration of this Act, or of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, in respect of the accident, incident or spill;
b) un puits de délimitation, s'ils proviennent du forage du puits et une fois écoulée la dernière des périodes suivantes, à savoir deux ans après la date d'abandon du forage du puits d'exploration en cause ou quatre-vingt-dix jours après la date d'abandon du forage du puits de délimitation;
c) un puits d'exploitation, s'ils proviennent effectivement du forage du puits et une fois écoulée la dernière des périodes suivantes, à savoir deux ans après la date d'abandon du puits d'exploration en cause ou soixante jours après la date d'abandon du forage du puits d'exploitation;
d) des travaux de géologie ou de géophysique exécutés dans telle partie des terres domaniales ou y ayant trait_:
(i) s'agissant d'un levé marin pour un puits foré, après la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement ou après que ces terres sont devenues réserves de l'État;
e) des recherches ou études techniques ou des opérations expérimentales, y compris des travaux de géotechnique, exécutés dans telle partie des terres domaniales ou y ayant trait_:
(i) si elles portent sur un puits foré après l'expiration de la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, au plus tôt cinq ans après leur achèvement;
f) un plan visant les situations d'urgence résultant d'activités autorisées sous le régime de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada;
g) des travaux de plongée, des observations météorologiques, l'état d'avancement des travaux, l'exploitation ou la production d'un gisement ou d'un champ;
g.1) des accidents, des incidents ou des écoulements de pétrole dans la mesure où ces renseignements sont nécessaires pour l'établissement et la publication d'un rapport à cet égard dans le cadre de la présente loi ou de la Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada;
(h) any study funded from an account established under subsection 76(1), if the study has been completed; and
(i) an environmental study, other than a study referred to in paragraph (h),
(i) where it relates to a well and the well has been drilled, after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) or the later period referred to in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) or (c)(i) or (ii), according to whether paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is applicable in respect of that well, or
(ii) in any other case, if five years have passed since the completion of the study.
h) des études achevées financées par le compte ouvert au titre du paragraphe 76(1);
i) d'autres types d'études de l'environnement_:
(i) s'agissant d'un puits foré, après l'expiration de la période visée à l'alinéa a) ou de la dernière des périodes visées aux alinéas b) ou c), selon l'alinéa qui s'applique au puits en cause,
(ii) par ailleurs, lorsque cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis leur achèvement.
SCHEDULE "B"
2. (1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.
...
19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act.
(2) The head of a government institution may disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information if
(a) the individual to whom it relates consents to the disclosure;
(b) the information is publicly available; or
(c) the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.
20. (1) Subject to this section, the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
...
(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or
...
24. (1) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which is restricted by or pursuant to any provision set out in Schedule II.
...
2. (1) La présente loi a pour objet d'élargir l'accès aux documents de l'administration fédérale en consacrant le principe du droit du public à leur communication, les exceptions indispensables à ce droit étant précises et limitées et les décisions quant à la communication étant susceptibles de recours indépendants du pouvoir exécutif.
...
19. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu de refuser la communication de documents contenant les renseignements personnels visés à l'article 3 de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.
(2) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale peut donner communication de documents contenant des renseignements personnels dans les cas où_:
a) l'individu qu'ils concernent y consent;
b) le public y a accès;
c) la communication est conforme à l'article 8 de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.
20. (1) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu, sous réserve des autres dispositions du présent article, de refuser la communication de documents contenant_:
...
c) des renseignements dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de causer des pertes ou profits financiers appréciables à un tiers ou de nuire à sa compétitivité;
...
24. (1) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu de refuser la communication de documents contenant des renseignements dont la communication est restreinte en vertu d'une disposition figurant à l'annexe II.
...
[1] R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1.
[2] S.C. 1987, c. 3.
[3] The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, S.N. 1986, c. 37.
[4] R.S.C. 1985, c. O-7.
[5] S. C. 1988, c. 28.
[6] The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Act. S.N.S., 1987, c. 3.
[7] Applicant's Record, Tab D, Exhibit "C" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[8] Applicant's Record, Tab E, Exhibit "C" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[9] Applicant's Record, Tab F, Exhibit "C" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[10] Applicant's Record, Tab D, Exhibit "G" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[11] Applicant's Record, Tab E, Exhibit "E" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[12] Applicant's Record, Tab F, Exhibit "F" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[13] Applicant's Record, Tab F, Exhibit "E" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[14] Applicant's Record, Tab D, Exhibit "E" to the affidavit of H. Paul Einarsson.
[15] Applicant's Record, Tab N, page 11, paragraphs 41 to 43.
[16] R.S., 1985, c. 36 (2nd supp.).
[17] S.N.S. 1993, c. 5.
[18] (2001), 14 C.P.R. (4th) 1 (F.C.T.D.); affirmed, [2003] F.C.J. No. 103 (Q.L.),(C.A.).
[19] [1996] 1 F.C. 268 (T.D.).
[20] [2003] F.C.J. No. 103 (Q.L.), (C.A.).
[21] Transcript, February 6, 2003, page 68, lines 19 to 22.
[22] Paragraph [22].
[23] [1989] 1 F.C. 47 (C.A.).
[24] See: Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Prime Minister) [1993] 1 F.C. 427 (T.D.) at pages
445-6.
[25] [2000] F.C.J. No. 1281 (Q.L.), (T.D.); affirmed, [2002] F.C.J. No. 150 (Q.L.), (C.A.).
[26] Respondent, Canada-Newfoundland Board's Record, Tab 1, pages 5 and 6.
[27] Applicant's Record, Tab G, page 4, lines 72 to 74.
[28] Applicant's Record, Tab G, page 5, lines 9 to 16.
[29] Applicant's Record, Tab G, page 5, lines 27 to 32.
[30] Respondent, Chairman, Canada-Nova Scotia Board's Record, Tab 1, pages 9 and 10.
[31] Applicant's Record, Tab L, pages 19 and 20.
[32] Applicant's Record, Tab L, pages 22 and 23.
[33] Respondent's (The Chairman, National Energy Board's) Record, Tab A.
[34] Respondent's (The Chairman, National Energy Board's) Record, Tab A, Exhibit "N" to the affidavit of John McCarthy.
[35] (1998), 24 F.T.R. 32; affirmed; (1990), 107 N.R. 89 (F.C.A.).
[36] Applicant's Record, Tab G, page 8, lines 10 to 12.
[37] Applicant's record, Tab G, page 8, lines 26 to 28.
[38] R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21.
[39] Transcript, pages 84 and 85.
[40] (1996), 115 F.T.R. 185.
[41] [2001] 3 F.C. 384 (T.D.); reversed on appeal, [2003] 1 F.C. 219 (F.C.A.) on ground not relevant for the purposes of this matter.