Christopher Rupar

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.