|
Cela dit, la Cour a conclu qu'étant donné les circonstances de l'espèce, la décision de la GRC de refuser de communiquer la lettre en date de septembre 1992 était déraisonnable. La Cour s'est fondée sur le fait que le demandeur avait déjà en sa possession une copie de la lettre (qu'il avait obtenue par un moyen autre qu'une demande présentée en vertu de la LPRP) et que l'on pouvait déduire, à partir des dossiers produits devant elle, que la GRC savait que le demandeur en avait une copie avant qu'elle n'en refuse la communication.
|
|
However, the Court held that, given the circumstances of this case, the RCMP's decision to refuse disclosure of the September 1992 letter was unreasonable. The Court based its finding on the fact that the applicant already had a copy of the letter (which he had obtained by means other than his request under the PA) and that it could be inferred, from the records before the Court, that the RCMP knew that the applicant had a copy prior to making its decision to refuse disclosure. The Court added that the objective to be served by not disclosing the applicant's personal information - to protect the sources and nature of sensitive information obtained or prepared in the conduct of a criminal investigation--could no longer be met because the information was already in the applicant's hands. Furthermore, the Court was of the view that, given these particular circumstances, allowing the RCMP's decision to stand would be inconsistent with the purpose of the PA which is not only to provide individuals with access to their personal information but also to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information. Implicit in this purpose is the right to ensure that one's personal information in records held by the government is accurate. Withholding the letter would deny the applicant the opportunity to have in
|