Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing to investigate his access to information complaint.

• The Information Commissioner declined to investigate because the access request was not submitted using the prescribed method.

• The court assessed the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s factual findings under the standard set in Vavilov.

• It was determined the applicant did not comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the Access to Information Act.

• Procedural fairness claims were rejected, as the applicant was afforded adequate opportunity to present information.

• The court dismissed the claim and directed both parties to file written submissions regarding costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Michael Moreau submitted a request for access to information to the Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA), directed by email to a general inbox and addressed to a staff member listed on the privacy page of the Authority's website. He received no response and subsequently filed a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada under section 30 of the Access to Information Act.

The Commissioner declined to investigate the complaint, citing that the request had not been submitted through the proper channels as prescribed by the Port Authority’s access to information procedures. The email sent by Mr. Moreau was not addressed to the designated access to information officer, nor was it submitted via the federal ATIP online portal. In light of this, the Commissioner concluded that the Port Authority had not received a valid request and therefore no investigation could proceed.

Mr. Moreau sought judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, arguing that the Commissioner’s decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. He also raised issues related to his right to legal representation at public expense and the appropriate standard of review. The Federal Court, presided over by Justice Sébastien Grammond, found that the Commissioner’s conclusion was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The judge noted that Mr. Moreau failed to follow mandatory procedures outlined by regulation, and that the person he contacted was not the designated officer to receive such requests.

On the question of procedural fairness, the Court held that Mr. Moreau received an adequate opportunity to provide supporting information and that the level of fairness afforded was appropriate under the Baker framework. Arguments about the right to state-funded legal counsel were dismissed as irrelevant, given that Mr. Moreau had not made such a request and there is no general constitutional right to legal representation in such administrative matters.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review. While no damages were awarded, the Court invited both parties to submit written submissions regarding costs, with deadlines set for future filings.