Steinhoff v. Canada ( Minister of Communications )
T-595-95
Rothstein J.
29/5/96
9 pp.
Applicants requesting information from archival records of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) concerning Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)-Information not disclosed pursuant to Access to Information Act, ss. 13(1), 15(1), 16(1) and 19(1)-S. 52 governing applications for documents claimed confidential under ss. 13 and 15 provides counsel for respondent opportunity to make in camera and ex parte representations-Claims to confidentiality under ss. 16(1) and 19(1) to be considered in light of s. 47 and not as strict as s. 52-Court obliged to take reasonable precautions to avoid disclosure under s. 47 but access to counsel on confidential basis permitted in some instances-As general rule, counsel should have access to all relevant documents in interest of fairness-Where Court deciding matter based on contents of documents, very low standard for counsel to meet in arguing requirement for access to information to effectively represent client-Documents in access to information matter different from other cases-Where disclosure of documents very issue before Court, threshold higher-In reconciling government duty of non-disclosure under s. 47 with duty of fairness, Court must consider counsel's explanation why information necessary to make effective argument-On authority of Hunter v. Canada (Consumer and Corporate Affairs), [1991] 3 F.C. 186 (C.A.), counsel should be given idea of nature of documents in issue so can explain why disclosure necessary for argument on merits-Sufficient to know type of information contained in documents without knowing details-Documents respondent seeking to keep confidential membership list of CUPW, other lists of names generated by Government or agencies and names appearing on other documents-Given absolute prohibition against disclosure to counsel when s. 15(1) invoked, where disclosure of s. 19(1) information would result in disclosure of s. 15(1) information, disclosure of s. 19(1) information not allowed-Counsel not satisfying Court disclosure of documents necessary to effectively argue merits of case for clients-Motions dismissed-Access to Information Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1, ss. 13(1), 15(1), 16(1), 19(1), 47, 52.