Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers' Association

Listen to Podcast

Case Brief

Facts

The Information and Privacy Commissioner received complaints that the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) disclosed private information in contravention of the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Section 50(5) of PIPA required the inquiry to be completed within 90 days unless the Commissioner notified the parties of an extension. The Commissioner took 22 months before extending the deadline. An adjudicator later found the ATA in contravention of the Act. The ATA applied for judicial review, arguing the Commissioner lost jurisdiction due to the delay. The chambers judge quashed the adjudicator's decision, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

Issues

1. Can a matter not raised before a tribunal be judicially reviewed? 2. Can reasons given by a tribunal in other decisions assist in determining the reasonableness of an implied decision? 3. Is a tribunal’s decision relating to the interpretation of its home statute reviewable on the standard of correctness or reasonableness? 4. Should the category of true questions of jurisdiction or vires be maintained when a tribunal is interpreting its home statute?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court held that although the timelines issue was not raised before the Commissioner or adjudicator, the adjudicator implicitly decided that providing an extension after 90 days did not terminate the inquiry. This implicit decision was subject to judicial review on a reasonableness standard. The Court emphasized that deference is usually given to a tribunal interpreting its own statute, unless the question is constitutional, jurisdictional, or of central importance to the legal system. The Court questioned the continued necessity of the "true question of jurisdiction" category, suggesting that a tribunal's interpretation of its home statute should generally be presumed subject to deference. The Court also found that reasons given by the Commissioner in other similar cases could be used to assess the reasonableness of the adjudicator's implied decision.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The adjudicator’s order was reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the chambers judge to consider issues not previously resolved. The Court determined that the adjudicator's implied decision was reasonable, as the Commissioner's interpretation of a similar provision in another act (FOIPA) provided a reasonable basis for the adjudicator's decision.

Transcript

Alright, Casepod listeners, welcome back! Today, we're diving into a fascinating case that really unpacks the complexities of judicial review and administrative law: Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner). Now, the basic setup is this: The Alberta Teachers’ Association, or ATA, got dinged for allegedly violating Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act, PIPA, by disclosing some private info. The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated, and eventually, an adjudicator found the ATA in contravention of the Act. Here's where it gets interesting. PIPA has a timeline – a 90-day window for the Commissioner to wrap up the inquiry, unless an extension is granted. In this case, the Commissioner took a *whopping* 22 months before extending the deadline. The ATA argued that this delay meant the Commissioner lost jurisdiction. They took it to court, and initially, they won! The lower courts agreed that the delay invalidated the adjudicator's decision. But the Supreme Court saw things differently. So, what were the big legal questions here? Well, first, could the ATA even raise this timeline issue in court, seeing as they *didn't* bring it up before the Commissioner or the adjudicator? Second, could the court look at *other* decisions made by the Commissioner in similar cases to figure out if *this* decision was reasonable? Third, is a tribunal's interpretation of its own law reviewed based on correctness or reasonableness? And finally, a big one: Should we still have this separate category of "true questions of jurisdiction" when a tribunal is interpreting its own statute? The Supreme Court really dug into these issues. They said that even though the ATA didn't explicitly raise the timeline issue earlier, the adjudicator *implicitly* decided that the late extension didn't kill the inquiry. And *that* implicit decision *could* be judicially reviewed. Now, what standard of review should be applied? The Court reiterated that tribunals usually get deference when interpreting their own statutes. The exception being if the question is constitutional, jurisdictional, or of central importance to the legal system. And here's a real head-scratcher: the "true question of jurisdiction" category. This is where courts traditionally intervene more readily. The Supreme Court questioned whether we even *need* this category anymore! They suggested that, generally, a tribunal's interpretation of its home statute *should* be presumed to be reviewed with deference. This is a pretty significant shift in thinking. The Court also said it was perfectly fine to look at other decisions made by the Commissioner to see if the adjudicator's decision was reasonable. In fact, the Commissioner had interpreted a similar provision in another Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FOIPA, in a way that supported the adjudicator's decision. So, what was the final outcome? The Supreme Court *allowed* the appeal! They reinstated the adjudicator's order and sent the case back to the lower court to deal with any other unresolved issues. In essence, they said the adjudicator's implied decision about the timeline was reasonable, especially given the Commissioner's previous interpretation of a similar law. This case is really important because it clarifies the rules around judicial review, especially when it comes to tribunals interpreting their own statutes. It also makes us think about the role of deference and whether we need to rethink the "true question of jurisdiction" concept. It’s a great example of how administrative law is constantly evolving. Food for thought, right?