Bornfreund v. Mount Allison University: a call for a more balanced approach to disputes under access to information legislation
Included in Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law – Issue 10
Overview
In Marcus Bornfreund v. Mount Allison University, 2022 NBQB 50 the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench firmly rejected a decision by the Ombud regarding a request for information under the New Brunswick Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“RTIPPA”).
Mr. Bornfreund, a lawyer based in Toronto, sought all correspondence involving Mount Allison’s Provost and Vice President, Academic and Research for a one-month period – without regard to any specific subject matter.
Mount Allison denied the request on the basis that it did not comply with the requirements of RTIPPA – in that the request did not identify the subject matter Mr. Bornfreund was interested in.
Specifically, New Brunswick legislation provides:
8(2) A request for access to a record shall
(a) specify the record requested or where the record in which the relevant information may be contained is not known to the applicant, provide enough particularity as to time, place and event to enable a person familiar with the subject matter to identify the relevant record
Mr. Bornfreund filed a complaint with the New Brunswick Ombud (the entity currently tasked with RTIPPA matters in New Brunswick).
The Ombud sided with Mr. Bornfreund throughout the complaint process and issued a decision setting out the Ombud’s view as to why Mr. Bornfreund did not need to identify a particular subject matter.
This would have required Mount Allison to retrieve and review approximately 9,400 emails and text messages – without regard to subject matter.
As individuals responsible for processing RTIPPA matters are well aware, gathering the documents would have been a small part of the work involved. Each document must be reviewed to determine whether the document or certain portions would need to be withheld in accordance with the statutory exceptions to disclosure.
Despite the Ombud’s decision, Mount Allison stood its ground and insisted that Mr. Bornfreund had not complied with the legislation.
Mr. Bornfreund therefore appealed the matter to the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.
The Court disagreed with the Ombud and upheld Mount Allison’s decision to deny the request.
The Court made certain findings that may also assist public bodies as they navigate access to information requests, including:
- For the Ombud to take the position that Mr. Bornfreund satisfied the requirements of RTIPPA by stating he was interested in “any events” was “incomprehensible”.
- RTIPPA is not meant for individuals to make needlessly broad requests in order to go on a “fishing expedition.”
- The Ombud erred in relying upon decisions from other provinces that have different legislation (something which the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench has commented on previously: see Hans v. St. Thomas University, 2016 NBQB 49 at para. 19).
- The Ombud erred in failing to give due consideration for the potential privacy rights impacted by the Provost and third parties with whom he had correspondence.
- Access to information legislation does not only have the goal of ensuring accountability of government and quasi government bodies – but also has other competing interests that would be defeated by unbridled disclosure of information. The Ombud’s undue emphasis on access to information and ignoring all other important considerations led to an erroneous interpretation of RTIPPA.
- Further, whereas one of the purposes of RTIPPA is to ensure access to public information, a corollary to that right is ensuring a system that is workable, not one where the applicants are permitted to be intentionally and unnecessarily broad and needlessly tying up resources.
Takeaways
Often public bodies find themselves faced with unreasonable demands from applicants under access to information legislation.
This is especially so in provinces like New Brunswick where there is no cost associated with making access to information requests.
In this case, the request was unreasonable in scope (and it was simply not a significant request of the applicant to identify the subject matter he was actually interested in).
More often, applicants can be unreasonable in terms of their reluctance to accept the exceptions claimed by a public body.
It can be discouraging when these disputes are reviewed by a statuary entity (in most provinces – the privacy commissioner) only to have that entity, which is tasked solely with enforcing the legislation, support an unreasonable position taken by an applicant – often at the expense of other legitimate interests at stake.
Further, public bodies are often faced with balancing: (1) complying with the request / findings of the statutory entity; with (2) the costs associated with litigating the matter in Court. This may explain why there are so few decisions from the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench providing much needed guidance for these disputes under the New Brunswick legislation (there are only around 25 reported decisions).
This case is one of those decisions setting out some much-needed guidance.
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Education Group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Kevin Landry and Emily Murray On March 8, 2021, Health Canada released draft guidance on personal production of cannabis for medical purposes (“Guidance Document”). At present, the Guidance Document is being circulated for public comment for…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has finally provided clarity on the limitation period for third party claims, in Sears v Top O’ the Mountain Apartments Limited, 2021 NSSC 80. This is…
Read MoreBrendan Sheridan Canada has continually claimed to be one of the countries with the toughest COVID-19 related travel and quarantine requirements. In response to the new COVID-19 variants emerging in the UK and South Africa,…
Read MoreDante Manna As of today, Newfoundland and Labrador has joined several other jurisdictions with financial hardship unlocking provisions. While the new provisions do not allow direct unlocking from pension plans, and unlocking is not available…
Read MoreNancy Rubin, QC Nova Scotia has taken a big step forward in recognizing the tort of publication of private facts. The case, Racki v Racki, 2021 NSSC 46 comes hot on the heels of Ontario’s…
Read MoreKathleen Leighton Canada is committed to developing Francophone minority communities in the country (outside of Quebec). In furtherance of this goal, there are a number of immigration initiatives in place to attract French speakers. By…
Read MoreAndrew Burke and Divya Subramanian The year 2020 was nothing short of unusual. With COVID-19 impacting every aspect of business and life, shareholder meetings also transitioned to a virtual medium. For more on how the…
Read MoreChad Sullivan and Kathleen Nash Overview The issue of hateful and harassing social media communication has garnered much attention in both the media and, more recently, in the courtroom. In Caplan v Atas,¹ Justice Corbett…
Read MoreDaniel MacKenzie and James Galsworthy On January 15, 2021, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court (“Court”) issued a decision which is likely to be viewed as good news for policy holders who have endured business interruption…
Read MoreGrant Machum, ICD.D and Mark Tector 2020 was a challenging year for many people and businesses. And while we are all happy to have 2020 in the rearview mirror, we anticipate that there will continue to…
Read More