Christopher Martin Rupar

The respondent requested access to government documents relating to his prosecution for regulatory offences, which had been quashed or stayed.

The government denied access to many documents, claiming solicitor-client privilege under s. 23 of the Access to Information Act, which was interpreted to include litigation privilege.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that litigation privilege, unlike legal advice privilege, expires with the litigation that gave rise to it, absent closely related proceedings.

Since the penal proceedings had terminated and the respondent's civil action for abuse of process was not closely related, the litigation privilege had expired and the documents were not exempt from disclosure.

A federal agency received a request under the Access to Information Act for records pertaining to the respondent company.

The agency notified the company that the records might contain confidential business information and, after receiving representations, decided to disclose the records with redactions.

The company applied for a review under s. 44 of the Act, seeking to raise the personal information exemption under s. 19.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a third party may raise the s. 19 personal information exemption in a s. 44 review, as the plain language of the statute and the combined purposes of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act support protecting privacy rights.

The respondent sought a survivor's pension under the Canada Pension Plan after her former common law partner died.

She had ended the relationship permanently prior to his death.

Her application was denied because she did not meet the definition of 'spouse', which required common law partners to be cohabiting at the time of death.

She argued this violated her equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter based on marital status, comparing herself to separated married spouses.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the correct comparator group was divorced spouses, not separated married spouses.

Since former common law spouses and former married spouses are both denied survivor's pensions, there was no discrimination.

The Information Commissioner appealed a refusal by the RCMP to disclose historical postings and employment information of four RCMP officers requested under the Access to Information Act.

The RCMP claimed the records were exempt as 'personal information' under the Privacy Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the information constituted personal information relating to employment history, it fell within the exception for information relating to the position or functions of a government employee.

The Court ruled that this exception applies retroactively to past positions and ordered the disclosure of the officers' historical postings, ranks, years of service, and anniversary dates.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

CSIS refused to disclose the information, claiming exemptions under the Privacy Act for national security and foreign confidences.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 51 of the Privacy Act, which mandates in camera and ex parte hearings when these exemptions are claimed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mandatory ex parte provision did not violate s. 7 of the Charter.

However, the mandatory in camera provision violated s. 2(b) of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1 because it was overly broad.

The Court read down s. 51(2)(a) to apply only to the ex parte submissions.

On a cross-appeal, the Court held that the law enforcement exemption in s. 22(1)(b) is not limited to current investigations.

The respondents, staff lawyers with the federal Department of Justice, sued the federal Crown for breach of contract regarding salary disparities.

During discovery, the government claimed Cabinet confidentiality over certain documents under s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, including some previously listed as producible.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 39 provides absolute protection once information is validly certified by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the common law concept of waiver does not apply.

The Court also upheld the constitutionality of s. 39, finding it does not impermissibly infringe on the core jurisdiction of superior courts or unwritten constitutional principles.

The appellant, an inmate at a federal penitentiary, was seriously injured while working on a prison farm.

He subsequently qualified for and received Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits.

He sued the Crown in tort for his injuries.

The Crown moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which precludes proceedings against the Crown if a pension or compensation has been paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund 'in respect of' the injury.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 9 does not bar the action.

The Court reasoned that CPP disability benefits are contingent on a contributor's disabled status and adequate contributions, not on the specific event of death, injury, damage, or loss.

Therefore, the benefits were not paid 'in respect of' the injury within the meaning of s. 9.