Notes
Page 26 of 26
1 LANGUAGE RIGHTS 1999-2000; Commissioner of Official Languages, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2001; Cat. No. SF31-342001; ISBN: 0-662-65868-X; for a more complete analysis of R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, see pages 17-19.
2 Lalonde et al. v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), Court of Appeal of Ontario, December 12, 2001, Docket: C33807.
3 LANGUAGE RIGHTS 1999-2000, Supra, note 1, at pp. 68-72.
4 Supra, note 2, at paragraph 61.
6 The Court of Appeal made reference to section 133, guaranteeing the use of both English and French in the legislative process and enactments of Parliament and the legislature of Quebec and before the courts created by either legislative body, and section 93 protecting minority Catholic and Protestant schools in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. While the Court acknowledged that Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 had been judicially interpreted to exclude any linguistic component, it pointed out that this historic grievance had been rectified by the enactment of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See paragraphs 78-86 of its decision.
7 Supra, note 2, at paragraph 94.
8 Ibid. at paragraph 104. The words are quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.
9 Id. at paragraph 111. Also at page 262 of Supreme Court of Canada decision, ibid.
10 The words of caution were quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada decision the Quebec Reference, ibid. at p. 249.
11 Supra, note 2, at paragraph 123.
12 R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768.
13 In the words of the Court of Appeal: “The F.L.S.A. is an example of the provincial legislature of Ontario using s. 16(3) to build on the language rights contained in the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Charter to advance the equality of status or use of the French language. The aspirational element contained in s. 16(3) — advancing the French language toward substantive equality with the English language in Ontario — is of significance in interpreting the F.L.S.A.” Supra, note 2, at paragraph 129.
20 Subsection 16(:2) reads: “English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.”
21 LANGUAGE RIGHTS 1999-2000, supra, note 1, at pp. 63-68.
22 Charlebois v. Mowat et ville de Moncton, 2001 NBCA 117 (judgement rendered December 20, 2001).
24 These provisions are found in ss. 16(2) and 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“16(2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal right and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.”
“16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.”
Sections 17-20 of the Charter also entrench the right to use either language in proceedings before the provincial legislature, the mandatory publication of its Acts in both languages, the right to use either French or English before provincial courts, and the right to communicate with and receive services from provincial government institutions in English and French.
25 See A.G. (Quebec) v. Blaikie et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 312, at pp. 321-324.
26 Recognition of the two linguistic communities is found in a statute entitled An Act Recogniz ing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick; Statutes of New Brunswick 1981, c. O-1.1, sections one and two of which read:
“1. Acknowledging the unique character of New Brunswick, the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community are officially recognized within the context of one province for all purposes to which the authority of the Legislature of New Brunswick extends, and the equality of status and the equal rights and privileges of these two communities are affirmed.”
“2. The Government of New Brunswick shall ensure protection of the equality of status and the equal rights and privileges of the official linguistic communities and in particular their right to distinct institutions within which cultural, educational and social activities may be carried on.”
27 The Court of Appeal adopted reasoning found in the Supreme Court decision R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295. It paraphrased the Supreme Court in these words: “In short, the interests they were meant to protect must be ascertained by reference: (a) to the character and the larger objects of the Charter itself; (b) to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter; and (c) to the language chosen to articulate the specific right taking into account the historical origins of the concepts enshrined.” Supra, note 22, at paragraph 49.
28 Supra, note 22, at paragraph 58.
29 Regarding the implementation of the principle of equality in section 16, the Court of Appeal referred to Société des Acadiens du Nouveau Brunswick c. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549, at p. 579, where emphasis was placed on the legislative process referred to in ss. 16(3), which reads: “Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.”
30 The Court of Appeal quoted from R. v. Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, at paragraph 24: “The idea that s. 16(3) of the Charter, which has formalized the notion of advancement of the objective of equality of the official languages of Canada in the Jones case, supra, limits the scope of s. 16(1) must also be rejected.”
31 Supra, note 22, at paragraph 76.
33 This is found in ss. 16.1(2) of the Charter: “The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed.”
34 In summary form, the Court of Appeal declared: “In light of the recent Supreme Court decisions already discussed concerning the larger objects of the Charter and the purposes of the provisions of subsection 16(2) and section 16.1, which have no equivalent in the Constitution Act, 1867, I believe that the historical and legislative context of the enactment of subsection 18(2) reflects a linguistic dynamic much more fertile in nature than the context which might have inspired the framers of section 133 at the time of Confederation. The principle of substantive equality of official languages and of the two official language communities entrenched in sections 16 and 16.1 and the corollary that language rights based thereon require government action for their implementation and therefore create obligations for the government has nothing to do with the minimum language guarantees provided for in section 133.” Supra, note 22, at par. 93.
37 The Court of Appeal quoted extensively from Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721. See Court of Appeal decision, paragraphs 121 to 124.
38 Supra, note 22, at paragraph 125.
40 Official Languages Act, Statutes of N.B., Chapter O-0.5, assented to June 7, 2002; repealing and replacing Official Languages of New Brunswick Act, Chapter O-1, Revised Statutes, 1973.
41 Subsection 35(2) provides: “A city is required to adopt and publish its by-laws in both official languages irrespective of the percentage required under subsection (1)”. Subsection 35(1) establishes the 20% threshold (regarding the size of the minority population) beyond which municipalities in general are also subject to the bilingual rule. A “city” is defined by reference to the definition found in section 16 of the Municipalities Act.
42 Services and Communications Regulation - Official Languages Act; N.B. Regulation 2002- 63 under the Official Languages Act (O.C. 2002-284). Detailed obligations and deadlines are found in Schedule A to the Regulation.
43 Bill 170 was adopted on December 20, 2000 and came into force the same day. See: S.Q. 2000, c. 56.
45 See sections 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 of the Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q., chapter C-11, in combination with section 29.1.
46 Baie d’Urfé (Ville) et al. v. Quebec (Attorney General), Superior Court of Quebec, June 28, 2001. Referenced as: [2001] J.Q. no 2954; JEL2001-292.
47 The Superior Court referred with approval to Supreme Court decisions in: Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549 and Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712.
48 Supra, note 46, at paragraph 135 and the Court’s footnote 124.
49 Ibid. at paragraphs 186-187.
50 In the words of the Superior Court: “[our translation] Finally, we must not forget that Montfort Hospital still the only hospital offering medical services in French in Ontario, while here the Anglophone community can receive bilingual services outside the plaintiff cities, in particular the current City of Montreal. That is why in Montfort the Court relied on the minority protection rule to protect the last and only bastion of medical services in French.” Ibid. at paragraph 190.
51 Baie d’Urfé v. Quebec (A.G.), Court of Appeal of Quebec, October 16, 2001. Referenced as: [2001] J.Q. no 4821; JEL2001- 498.
52 Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998[ 2 S.C.R. 217.
53 Supra, note 51, at paragraph 82.
56 Quoted from MacDonald v. City of Montreal [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, at p. 496. See paragraph 135 of the Court of Appeal decision, supra, note 51.
57 Supra, note 51, at paragraph 140.
58 The Court of Appeal summarized its conclusion in this regard in the following words: “[our translation] By concluding that language rights should be given a generous interpretation consistent with their purpose, the Supreme Court did not thereby abandon the rule that it is not the courts’ function to add to the political compromise on language rights.” Ibid. at paragraph 143.
60 The actual wording of ss. 23(1)(b) is: “Citizens of Canada...(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.”
61 Section 23(2) states that “Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.”
62 Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q. 1977, C. c-11, ss. 73(1) and (2). The present wording of these two paragraphs was adopted in 1993 by means of an amending statute: S.Q. 1993, c. 40.
63 See LANGUAGE RIGHTS 1999-2000, supra, note 1, at pp. 35-38.
64 Solski et al. v. A.G. Quebec, Court of Appeal of Quebec, May 15, 2002; No: 500-09- 010454-007 (500-05-046976-989). Other parties with similar challenges to the statutory provisions in question were added as intervenors to the original action begun by Solski.
65 It relied on the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, p. 344. See paragraphs 31 and following of the Court of Appeal judgment, ibid.
66 See Campisi v. Quebec (A.G.) [1977] S.C. 1067, at pp. 1075-1076.
67 Attorney General v. Quebec Protestant School Boards [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66.
68 Quoted from Mahé v. Alberta [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342, p. 362. Reproduced at paragraph 49 of the Court of Appeal judgement, supra, note 64.
69 A.G. (Que.) v. Quebec Protestant School Boards [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66, p. 84. A more extensive quote of the Supreme Court is reproduced at paragraph 51 of the Court of Appeal judgement, ibid.
70 Supra, note 64, at paragraph 53.
74 The Court of Appeal quoted approvingly from the Supreme Court decision in Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education in Education [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549, p. 578. See Court of Appeal decision at paragraph 58. However, this is the very passage disapproved of by the Supreme Court in R. Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768.
75 The Ontario decision referred to is: Abbey v. Essex County Board of Education, (1999) 42 O.R. (3rd) 481 (Ontario Court of Appeal). For a more complete discussion of this case see Language Rights Report, supra, note 1, pp. 33-35.
76 See Application for Leave to Appeal (Edwidge Casimir, Applicant); Section 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, Rule 25; No. 29297, filed August 13, 2002. Although the original plaintiffs (the Solski parents) had abandoned further legal action prior to the Court of Appeal decision, the case had been continued by interveners Casimir and Lacroix.
77 Gosselin (tuteur de) et al. v. Quebec (Attorney General), Court of Appeal of Quebec, May 15, 2002; [2002] J.Q. no 1126; JEL2002-418.
78 Ibid. at paragraph 24. The Court of Appeal was quoting from R. v. Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, p. 792.
79 Id. at paragraph 23, quoting from the Supreme Court decision in Mahé v. Alberta [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342, p. 369.
83 Gosselin, et al. v. A.G. of Quebec (Minister of Education); Application for leave to appeal No. 29298, filed August 13, 2002.
84 See Revised Regulations of Quebec 1981, C-11, r. 4.2 - Regulation respecting requests to receive instruction in English. Amended by Order in Council 1758-93, December 8, 1993 - (1993) G.O., 8897 (eff. 94-01-06)
85 Edwidge Casimir (applicant) v. A.G. Quebec (Minister of Education)(respondent) and Consuelo Zorrilla (applicant) v. A.G. Quebec (respondent) and Ikechukwu Okwuobi (applicant) v. A.G. Quebec (Minister of Education)(respondent); filed August 13, 2002; Docket No. 29299.
86 The Court of Appeal decision was released on May 15, 2002 and was applied to all applications then pending on the facts in Casimir, Zorrilla and Okwuobi. The specific decision of the Court of Appeal in Casimir is filed under the docket number 500-09-010417-004. The Court of Appeal decision also effectively overturned a previous Superior Court decision favourable to the application of Zorrilla issued March 7, 2001 and filed under docket number 500-05-062118-003; and reported as [2001] J.Q. no 867 JEL2001-125.
87 Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Eduction), (2000) 185 N.S.R. (2nd) 246 (N.S. Supreme Court). For a review of this decision see: LANGUAGE RIGHTS REPORT 1999-2000, supra, note 1, at pp. 28-33.
88 The Court of Appeal identified three “reporting sessions” that took place between the date of the trial judge’s decision (June 15, 2000) and the date of the order giving effect to that decision (December 14, 2000). A forth session occurred on March 23, 2001, and a fifth was scheduled for August 10th of the same year. It described these sessions in the following words: “Prior to each reporting session the trial judge directed the Province to file an affidavit from the appropriate official at the Department of Education setting out the department’s progress in complying with the trial judge’s decision. The trial judge permitted the respondents and CSAP to cross-examine the government official on his affidavits. He also permitted the respondents and CSAP to adduce evidence, including rebuttal evidence. All this was done without any application seeking particular relief, and, therefore, there was nothing to define the parameters of the reporting session. Further, all this was done over the objections of counsel for the appellant claiming that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to conduct these reporting sessions, that the trial judge was functus officio, that there was no fresh proceeding before him, and that the trial judge was powerless to make any order without such fresh proceedings.” See paragraph 15 of the judgment, infra.
89 Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Department of Education), Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia, June 26, 2001, at paragraph 24. Referenced as [2001] N.S.J. No. 240/2001 NSCA 104; Docket: CA 168059. With respect to strictly statutory provisions, the Court found: “There is no provision in the Judicature Act which authorizes a trial judge who has decided the matter between the parties, and has issued an order with respect thereto, to retain any further jurisdiction in the case in order to be able to determine that there will be compliance with his order, and to that end to direct a party to file affidavits with him setting forth the status of that party’s efforts to comply with his decision and order.” See paragraph 23.
93 R. v. Boutin, Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), June 7, 2002; [2002] O.J. No 2245.
94 See MacDonald v. City of Montreal [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460, p. 496. The facts of the MacDonald case concerned an English-speaking Montrealer who was issued a unilingual French summons to appear in Municipal Court to answer to charges of having violated a city by-law. He contested the jurisdiction of the court to proceed against him on the basis that the summons had violated his constitutional rights to use English before the courts of Quebec as protected under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It was in this context that the Supreme Court had determined that a unilingual French summons did not violate section 133, and that the rights protected thereunder apply to those who issue processes, not to those who receive them.
95 See R. v. Simard (1995) 27 O.R. (3rd) 116
96 Supra, note 93, at paragraph 18.
99 R. v. Stadnick, Quebec Superior Court, October 24, 2001; [2001] Q.J. No. 5226.
103 R. v. Stadnick, [2002] S.C.C.A. No.413.
104 R. v. Peters, Quebec Court of Appeal, September 8, 1999; [1999] J.Q. No. 4143
105 Ibid. at paragraphs 35-36..
106 R. v. Doucet, Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, July 15, 2001; File number 795959.
108 Supra, note 105, at page 5.
109 The trial judge quoted from R. v. Haché [1993] N.B.J. No. 474 (Court of Appeal of New Brunswick)..
110 Donnie Doucet v. The Queen in Right of Canada and RCMP; Federal Court Trial Division; File No. T-1151-00.
111 Les Contenants Industriels Ltée c. La Commission des lésions professionnels, et al.; Superior Court of Quebec, March 7, 2002; No. 500-05-064334-012.
113 In the words of the Court: “[our translation] Unless the basis for that choice is the refusal by the presiding authority to allow such persons to testify in their mother tongue, they cannot subsequently claim that the procedure was invalid and argue that the person in question was uncomfortable and all the fine points that should be expressed could not be.” Ibid. at paragraph 58.
115 Les Contenants Industriels Ltée v. La Commission des lésions professionnelles et al.; Court of Appeal of Quebec, Pierre Dalphond, J.C.A., May 2, 2002. The Court of Appeal declared: “[our translation] On the question of language rights, the motion for leave to appeal a judgment dismissing a motion for judicial review actually raises a question of assessment of facts, and in particular the consent of witnesses to testify in English rather than in French.”
116 Charlebois v. Saint John (Ville); Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, December 11, 2002; Referenced as: [2002] NBQB 382; No S/M/72/02.
118 Subsection 16(2) provides: “English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.”
119 The Court of Queen’s Bench relied on a previous decision of the Federal Court of Canada that had distinguished pleadings from evidence and had concluded that neither the Constitution nor the federal Official Languages Act obliged the Crown in right of Canada to present affidavit evidence in an official language other than that in which it was prepared. See Lavigne v. Canada (Human Resources Development), [1995] F.C.J. No. 737.
120 R. v. Charest, Ontario Court of Justice, December 11, 2001; Referenced as [2001] O.J. No. 5763.
121 See ss. 126(5) Courts of Justice Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, c. 43.
122 Ontario Regulation 53/01 entitled Bilingual Proceedings, under the Courts of Justice Act.
123 See LANGUAGE RIGHTS REPORT 1999-2000, pp. 82-85, supra, note 1; the amend ments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act (S.C. 2000, c.15) set out specific criteria to determine when the OLA applies; since Air Canada was explicitly obliged to ensure that its subsidiaries have to provide in-flight and incidental services to its customers in either official language (whenever the OLA would so require Air Canada) the reference to the Federal Court has been withdrawn.
124 Louis Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons) et al., Federal Court Trial Division, June 5, 2002; Docket: T-2395-00/Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 645.
125 New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319, p. 385.
126 Supra, note 124, paragraph 43.
128 Id. at paragraph 55. The presiding judge suggested that one way the House could respect its linguistic obligations under section 25 would be to negotiate a contractual clause with CPAC that would regulate the latter’s relationship with BDUs: “By way of example, in the contract between the Speaker of the House and CPAC, if CPAC undertook to negotiate in its agreements with BDUs that the latter would broadcast CPAC programming in both official languages, then the problem facing the applicant would be avoided.” See paragraph 56
129 La Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick c. Sa Majesté la Reine et Gendarmerie Royale du Canada; Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division), File no. T-1996-01. Legal action was first commenced in the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, which determined that the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction to grant the relief sought pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Federal Court Act. It found that the RCMP was a “federal board, commission or tribunal” within the meaning of section 2 of the Federal Court Act, and that such status was not altered when the RCMP performed policing functions for a province. As the plaintiff sought both declaratory relief and specific court orders against the RCMP directing it to halt implementation of the consultant’s report, reinstate previous linguistic requirements, and respect its obligations under ss. 16, 16.1 and 20 of the Charter, the nature of the remedies sought fell squarely within the terms of ss. 18(1) of the Federal Court Act. The Court of Queen’s Bench pointed to Supreme Court jurisprudence to the effect that jurisdiction to grant a remedy under ss. 24(1) of the Charter must emanate from a source other than the Charter itself. In the case at bar that was ss. 18(1) of the Federal Court Act. For the decision on the jurisdictional issue see: Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police); New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, May 7, 2001; [2001] N.B.J. No. 390.
130 Lavigne v. Canada [2002] 2 F.C. 164.
131 R.S.Q. c. M-15.001. As a further source of Quebec’s activities in this area, the provincial government points to: An Act respecting income support, employment assistance and social solidarity, R.S.Q. c. S-32.001.
132 For this and other extracts from the minister’s letter see the Federal Court decision, supra, note 152, at p. 172.
133 See Federal Court decision, ibid. at p. 174.
135 In this regard, the Court declared: “The federal Minister, in his response to the Quebec Minister, did not decide that the OLA did not apply to the LMIA. What he did was describe the services to be provided by Quebec and concluded that such services satisfied Canada’s legislative requirements. In saying this, he was referring to paragraph 57(1)(d.1) of the EIA which provides that the employment benefits and support measures under Part II of the EIA must be provided in either official language where there is a significant demand for that assistance in that language.” Ibid. at p. 201.
136 Rogers v. Canada (Correctional Service Canada), [2001] 2 F.C. 586. Docket: T-195-97.
138 Canada (Attorney General) v. Morgan, [1992] 2 F.C. 401.
140 Rogers v. Canada (Department of National Defence), Federal Court Trial Division, February 16, 2001; Docket: T-2712-95.
143 The Court also took issue with the view expressed by the judge in the first Rogers decision involving Correctional Service Canada that a report issued by the OCOL “can be accepted as evidence that a breach of the Act has occurred.” The Court here stressed that any conclusion that a breach of the Act has occurred “must be reached after the judge has heard and weighed the evidence advanced by both parties.” Ibid. at paragraph 40.
145 Kevin Marchessault v. Canada Post Corporation, Federal Court Trial Division, November 22, 2002; Docket: T-1463-00; Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 1202.
146 See LANGUAGE RIGHTS 1999-2000, supra, note 1, at pp. 76-79. N.B. The Superior Court (which had sat on appeal from a trial level decision) was erroneously identified in our last report as the Court of Appeal of Quebec.
147 Attorney General of Quebec v. Les Entreprises W.F.H. ltée, Court of Appeal of Quebec, October 24, 2001; [2001] J.Q. no 5021; JEL/2001-512.
148 Ford v. Quebec (A.G.), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712.
150 Supra, note 147, at paragraph 61.
152 Devine v. Quebec (A.G), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790, p. 820.
153 Supra, note 147, paragraph 91.
154 Devine v. Quebec (A.G), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790, p. 820.
155 For the trial level decision see: Fédération Franco-ténoise v. Canada, [2001] 1 F.C. 241. For the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal see: [2002] 3 F.C. 641.
159 Fédération Franco-ténoise, et al. v. Procureur général du Canada, Procureur général des Territoires des T.N.-O, et al. Decision of the Supreme Court of the NWT rendered November 8, 2002; File No. S-0001-CV-2001000345.
160 The exact wording of the statute is: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a government institution and that provide individuals with a right of access to that information.” Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, section 2.
161 Copies of notes pertaining to interviews with the district manager of the Montreal office and the regional coordinator of official languages were released with their consent
162 For trial level decision see Lavigne v. Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), (1998), 157 F.T.R. 15. For Federal Court of Appeal decision see (2000), 261 N.R. 19.
163 Lavigne v. Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), Supreme Court of Canada, June 20, 2002, paragraph 23; Neutral Citation: 2002 SCC 53. File No.: 28188. It should be noted that the Privacy Commissioner appeared as an intervener and presented arguments in favour of the disclosure of the personal information.
165 The Court acknowledged the primacy provision found in section 82 of the OLA, but indicated that it only applied to Parts I to IV of the Act. As the Commissioner’s arguments relied on provisions found in Part IX of the OLA, the primacy clause could have no application to the case at bar. Ibid. at paragraph 40.
