Ethical Dilemma in Canadian Organizations

Ethical Dilemma in Canadian Organizations

Air Canada Case

On April 20, the Federal Court ruled in favor of Air Canada by finding that it was not required to grant the request of the Commissioner for the Protection of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to produce an affidavit stating the reasons for documents containing personal information on a passenger involved in an incident on board should be considered a taxable preferred because the solicitor-client privilege and attorney documents prepared for litigation. The decision was not appealed. Marc-André Fabien and Karine Joizil Fasken Martineau acted as legal advisors to Air Canada as part of these proceedings. David Rheault, litigation lawyer at Air Canada has also appeared before the Federal Court.

The facts

The incident giving rise to the dispute dates back to 26 May 2005. During the flight AC-8193 Air Canada Jazz from Kamloops to Vancouver, a flight attendant noted that two individuals consume the beer they have not been served by the crew. This behavior is prohibited by the Canadian Aviation Regulations. At the request of the officer, his two passengers recover their consumption. One of them shows himself offended, which gives rise to a lively discussion between the passenger and the flight attendant. Upon arrival at the airport in Vancouver, officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a representative from customer service to Air Canada welcome on the tarmac. No charges will be brought against him.

The next day, the individual addresses a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer of Air Canada holding company responsible for the abuse he suffered. There are numerous exchanges between Air Canada and its customer in which the latter request, to enforce his version of events, to access reports mentioning his role in the incident. Air Canada denied access to documents because they are protected by professional secrecy of lawyers and litigation privilege, exceptions to the Act on the Protection of Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

March 5, 2007, the passenger filed a complaint against Air Canada's Commissioner for the protection of privacy. The Commissioner requires Air Canada to produce an affidavit explaining the reasons for its refusal to disclose the documents referred to. Based on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Blood Tribe, later confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, Air Canada argues that it is not required to prove the substantiate his claims as to the privileged documents.

With the consent of the passenger, the commissioner for the protection of privacy requests a hearing before the Federal Court on the basis of Article 15 of the PIPEDA. The Commission wants the court to rule on its jurisdiction to order Air Canada the production of an affidavit, the privileged nature of the documents and the appropriateness of the individual concerned damages.

Decision

The lack of power of the Commissioner to order the production of an affidavit

Federal Court, the Commissioner argued that section 12 of PIPEDA invested with broad powers, including assigning and compelling witnesses to testify in writing and to produce documents or ...