Skip to content

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


Mark Heighton & Chad Sullivan

 

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:

  1. 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”.
  2. RTIPPA is not meant for individuals to make needlessly broad requests in order to go on a “fishing expedition.”
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Valentine’s Day @ the Workplace

February 14, 2013

Yellow diamonds in the light And we’re standing side by side As your shadow crosses mine What it takes to come alive It’s the way I’m feeling I just can’t deny But I’ve gotta let…

Read More

Client Update: Nova Scotia Contaminated Site – Ministerial Protocols

January 11, 2013

INTRODUCTION On December 6, 2012, The Nova Scotia Department of Environment (NSE) released Draft Ministerial Protocols (the “Draft Protocols”) related to contaminated sites. The release of the Draft Protocols has been eagerly anticipated. The adoption…

Read More

Client Update: Changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court

January 3, 2013

Recent changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, SNL 1986, c 42, Sch D On December 14, 2012, several changes were made to the Rules of the Supreme Court. These changes include: who may act…

Read More

Doing Business in Atlantic Canada (Winter 2012) (Canadian Lawyer magazine supplement)

January 1, 2013

IN THIS ISSUE: Putting Trust in your Estate Planning, by Paul Coxworthy and Michael McGonnell The Risks, for Insurers in Entering Administration Services Only (ASO) Contracts, by Tyana Caplan Angels in Atlantic Canada, by Allison McCarthy, Gavin Stuttard and Adam Bata…

Read More

Client Update – Changes to the Human Rights Legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador

July 13, 2010

Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, came into force on June 24, 2010 replacing the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). For more information, please download a copy of this client update.

Read More

Atlantic Business Counsel – December 2009

December 18, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Expanded Fines and Penalties for Environmental Offences: The New Federal Environmental Enforcement Act Spam about to be Canned? Preparing a Business for Sale Business Disputes Corner – Place of Arbitration and Selected…

Read More

Client Update – General Damage Cap Upheld By the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

December 15, 2009

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the province’s legislative limits on general damage recovery for “minor injuries”. Today’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, completely affirms the January 2009 decision of…

Read More

Client Update – New Planning Opportunities For ULCs

December 4, 2009

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) announced helpful administrative positions concerning the new rules under the Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Income Tax Convention, 1980 which will come into effect on January 1, 2010. The CRA…

Read More

Atlantic Construction Counsel – Fall 2009

November 26, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE Contractor Held Liable for Business Interruption: Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 When Can a Tendering Authority Walk Away if Bids are Too High? Crown Paving Ltd. v. Newfoundland &…

Read More

Client Update – Nova Scotia Unlimited Companies: An Update

November 6, 2009

Withholding tax and other issues under the Fifth Protocol The Fifth Protocol to the Canada-US Tax Convention, 1980 introduced significant changes which may affect the use of most unlimited companies and other so-called ULCs. These…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top