A former Parks Canada employee who sought disclosure of redacted information about himself after his termination has had his application for judicial review dismissed by the Federal Court.
The case centers around M.P., who worked for Parks Canada from May 2008 until July 2022, when his employment was terminated without cause. M.P. made two requests under the Privacy Act seeking personal information about himself from his former supervisor and another manager.
Though Parks Canada provided records in response to both requests, some information was redacted under exemptions that prevent disclosure of personal information of other individuals and protect solicitor-client privilege.
After M.P. complained to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), Parks Canada provided additional information that had been mistakenly omitted from the original disclosure packages. However, some redactions remained in place, which prompted M.P. to seek judicial review.
Background
The court noted that M.P.’s employment with Parks Canada ended during what it described as a “somewhat tumultuous” period, during which he “disputed negative comments on a performance appraisal and filed a number of complaints and requests for information.”
After his termination, M.P. requested emails, texts, digital records, letters, documents and handwritten notes about himself from two managers – his former supervisor and another executive director who had managed the process that led to his termination.
In his application, M.P. indicated his “main motivation” was Parks Canada’s “failure to disclose all records sought by him under the Privacy Act, most particularly records of ‘a series of documents that record a number of instances of poor behaviour’ and ‘rude’, ‘disrespectful’ behaviour allegedly provided by [his former supervisor] to [the executive director].”
The court’s analysis
The Federal Court examined three main issues: whether Parks Canada conducted an adequate search for records, whether it properly applied Privacy Act exemptions for personal information about other individuals, and whether it correctly applied solicitor-client privilege exemptions.
Search for records
M.P. argued that Parks Canada failed to conduct an adequate search, pointing to the fact that the agency only disclosed some records after being pressed by the OPC investigator. He further claimed that Parks Canada is “notorious” for failing to conduct appropriate searches under both the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act.
The court rejected these arguments, finding that the additional documents discovered during the OPC investigation had been found during the original search but were not included in the disclosure due to “inadvertence and a computer system glitch.”
“I am not persuaded that Parks Canada conducted an inadequate search for records in response to the Applicant’s requests,” the court stated. “Although its original disclosure fell short by not including all of the records that had been gathered, Parks acknowledged its error and provided the missing documents to the Applicant.”
Personal information exemptions
M.P. argued that Parks Canada had withheld too much information under Section 26 of the Privacy Act, which allows government institutions to refuse disclosure of personal information about individuals other than the requester.
He contended that any opinions or views expressed about him by others constituted his personal information and should have been disclosed, citing a Federal Court of Appeal decision (Pirie) that had ordered disclosure of similar information in a different case.
After reviewing the redacted information, the court found that it was properly withheld as personal information of other individuals and “does not contain information expressing views or opinions about M.P. or his job performance.”
“Much of the information relates to human resource matters relating to other individuals,” the court noted. “While some of the information contains expressions of opinion, these do not refer to these individual’s views of M.P. Instead, some of these references express the views and feelings of the individuals themselves.”
Solicitor-client privilege
M.P. accepted that direct communication between Parks Canada officials seeking legal advice would be protected, but argued that emails between Parks Canada managers on which legal counsel was merely copied should not be redacted.
The court disagreed, finding that “all of the claims properly fall within the categories of solicitor-client and/or litigation privilege” and that Parks Canada acted reasonably in not disclosing this information.
“Solicitor-client and litigation privilege protects important interests that underpin our legal system,” the court stated, noting that this privilege “applies when government lawyers (or outside counsel) give legal advice to government officials.”
Conclusion
While acknowledging M.P.’s desire to obtain more information about why his employment was terminated, the court concluded that “the withheld material at issue in this proceeding did not pertain to any such information.”
The court dismissed M.P.’s application for judicial review, finding that Parks Canada properly applied exemptions under the Privacy Act and conducted an adequate search for records.
“It is not the Court’s role on this application to assess whatever justification Parks may have for its decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment, and so I make no comment on that point,” the court concluded.
For more information, see Patrikeev v. Parks Canada, 2025 FC 688 (CanLII).
