2 total
Law enforcement must obtain a Criminal Code production order to access class members' information.
The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.
The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.
The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.
Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.
Judicial review dismissed as moot; court declines discretion to hear case.
The applicant, an Aboriginal offender who discovered his identity late in life, sought judicial review of a Parole Board decision upholding the revocation of his statutory release.
By the time of the hearing, the applicant had been subject to several subsequent Parole Board decisions, and the parties agreed the application was moot.
The Federal Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, finding that the live controversy had disappeared, an adversarial context based on a concrete factual record no longer existed, and proceeding would depart from the court's traditional role by acting like a reference.
