| Digest: R. v. Finley
[2011] S.J. No. 48
Criminal law — Constitutional issues — Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms — Legal rights — Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
— Application by Finley for declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act was
unconstitutional dismissed — Finley was charged under s. 31(b) of Act for
failing to complete 2006 Long Form Census — She argued that s. 31 compelled
provision of personal information that interfered with her reasonable
expectation of privacy — Diminished privacy expectation in Statistics Canada’s
collection of personal information for statistical purposes — Census questions
did not unreasonably invade privacy — Appropriate balance struck between
individual’s dignity, integrity and autonomy and goal of effective information
gathering — Therefore, there was no breach of s. 8 of Charter.
Government law — Access to information and privacy — Protection of
privacy — Governmental or public information — Census records — Application by
Finley for declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act was unconstitutional
dismissed — Finley was charged under s. 31(b) of Act for failing to complete
2006 Long Form Census — She argued that s. 31 compelled provision of personal
information that interfered with her reasonable expectation of privacy —
Diminished privacy expectation in Statistics Canada’s collection of personal
information for statistical purposes — Census questions did not unreasonably
invade privacy — Appropriate balance struck between individual’s dignity,
integrity and autonomy and goal of effective information gathering — Therefore,
there was no breach of s. 8 of Charter.
Application by Finley
for a declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act was unconstitutional. Finley
was charged under s. 31(b) of the Act for failing to complete and submit the
2006 Long Form Population Census. She reviewed the Census question by question,
and she objected to providing information with respect to all questions except
with respect to her gender. She gave two reasons. First, she was concerned about
the role of Lockheed Martin in the census process and objected to Statistics
Canada contracts being granted to Lockheed Martin Canada because of what she
believed to be the parent company’s activities in relation to armaments. In this
regard, Finley regarded refusing to complete the census as an extension of her
freedom of expression and a form of conscientious objection. Secondly, she
objected to being required by law to relinquish control over what she regarded
as a biographical core of personal information. She believed that this
information should only be requested on a voluntary basis and she did not choose
to release this information to Statistics Canada. She further believed that
private information about Canadians, collected by Statistics Canada in the 2006
census, might be compelled by the United States pursuant to that country’s
Patriot Act. Lockheed Martin Canada was contracted to print the 2006 census
questionnaires and provide the software used to scan the questionnaires and
convert handwritten responses into electronic and ultimately to coded numeric
responses. Approximately 64 of the 567 million dollars expended on the 2006
Census was awarded to Lockheed Martin Canada for its products and services.
Section 31 of the Act imposed, upon conviction, maximum penalties of a fine, not
exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.
Finley sought relief under sections 8 and 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that
s. 31, insofar as it compelled the provision of personal information, was an
unconstitutional interference with her reasonable expectation of privacy.
HELD:
Application dismissed and Finley was found guilty. While s. 31 of the Statistics
Act was engaged by s. 8 of the Charter, there was no breach. The information for
the 2006 Long Form Population Census was sought for informational and
statistical purposes. There was no interest in the individual responses, which
were protected by anonymity. The value was in the aggregate of the information
obtained. That information, once in an aggregate form, had many potential
pro-social uses for governments, community, industry, universities, and private
individuals and corporations. There were extensive guarantees of privacy once
the information was in the hands of Statistics Canada. The guarantees of
anonymity and confidentiality that were in place met or exceeded what was called
for to protect Finley’s identity. The Statistics Act contained penalties not to
prohibit or limit the activities of individuals, as many regulatory statutory
schemes were designed to do, but rather to ensure a viable informational
response for good statistics. The information was not requested in pursuit of a
criminal investigation. The public goal of the enforcement provisions was not
aimed at preventing, investigating, or prosecuting crime but rather at ensuring
a good sample of responses and therefore reliable statistical information. There
was a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to the collection by
Statistics Canada of personal information for statistical purposes. The
questions posed in the 2006 Long Form Population Census, given the guarantees of
confidentiality and anonymity, did not amount to an unreasonable invasion of
privacy. An appropriate balance was struck between the societal interests of the
individual’s dignity, integrity and autonomy and the goal of effective
information gathering for statistical purposes. Therefore, there was no breach
of s. 8 of the Charter. |