Différends et enquêtes|13 novembre 2013
Victory for Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Supreme Court Case on privacy legislation
Torys acted as counsel to Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) as an intervener with a team that included Trisha Jackson and Sarah Whitmore.
On November 15, 2013, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) as intervener, won a major victory in the Supreme Court case of Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 410, 2013 SCC 62.
The issue in UFCW was whether Alberta's privacy legislation struck a constitutionally acceptable balance between an individual's interest in controlling the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information and a union's right to free expression under section 2 (b) of the Charter. The case arose out of several individuals' complaints to the Alberta Privacy Commissioner regarding a union's videotaping of its picket lines during a lawful strike at a casino in the West Edmonton Mall. The Union video-taped and photographed the picket line near the Casino's main entrance. Signs posted near the picket line advised that the images might be placed on a website (www.casinoscabs.ca). On judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that PIPA directly limited the Union's freedom of expression in a manner that was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed and granted the union a constitutional exemption from the application of PIPA. The Court of Appeal accorded minimal weight to the complainants' privacy interests, including controlling collection, use and disclosure of their personal information, because the individuals were appearing in public at the time of the Union's collection. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The CCLA intervened in the case before the Supreme Court to address the balancing of the important values at stake, freedom of expression and privacy interests. In its decision, the Supreme Court accepted the arguments made on behalf of the CCLA and confirmed that privacy legislation is "quasi-constitutional", because of the "fundamental role privacy plays in the preservation of a free and democratic society." The Court also confirmed that a person does not forfeit their right to control their personal information by simply appearing in public. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately concluded that PIPA unreasonably interfered with the union's right to free expression and struck down the legislation as unconstitutional. The Court's decision in UFCW affirmed the position advocated by the CCLA that when legislation engages competing fundamental values, including the protection of personal information and privacy interests, the proper approach to reconciling these values is not to give one primacy over the other.
The Court's decision can be found on Lexum's website.
The issue in UFCW was whether Alberta's privacy legislation struck a constitutionally acceptable balance between an individual's interest in controlling the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information and a union's right to free expression under section 2 (b) of the Charter. The case arose out of several individuals' complaints to the Alberta Privacy Commissioner regarding a union's videotaping of its picket lines during a lawful strike at a casino in the West Edmonton Mall. The Union video-taped and photographed the picket line near the Casino's main entrance. Signs posted near the picket line advised that the images might be placed on a website (www.casinoscabs.ca). On judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that PIPA directly limited the Union's freedom of expression in a manner that was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed and granted the union a constitutional exemption from the application of PIPA. The Court of Appeal accorded minimal weight to the complainants' privacy interests, including controlling collection, use and disclosure of their personal information, because the individuals were appearing in public at the time of the Union's collection. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The CCLA intervened in the case before the Supreme Court to address the balancing of the important values at stake, freedom of expression and privacy interests. In its decision, the Supreme Court accepted the arguments made on behalf of the CCLA and confirmed that privacy legislation is "quasi-constitutional", because of the "fundamental role privacy plays in the preservation of a free and democratic society." The Court also confirmed that a person does not forfeit their right to control their personal information by simply appearing in public. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately concluded that PIPA unreasonably interfered with the union's right to free expression and struck down the legislation as unconstitutional. The Court's decision in UFCW affirmed the position advocated by the CCLA that when legislation engages competing fundamental values, including the protection of personal information and privacy interests, the proper approach to reconciling these values is not to give one primacy over the other.
The Court's decision can be found on Lexum's website.