Dueling for Canadian data — Uplink Archive

A Montreal Gazette intern reporter won an access to information case against the City of Montreal in 1995, forcing them to release a construction permits database by arguing that extracting existing data is not creating a new document. The Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information ruled in the reporter's favor, establishing a potential precedent for future journalism access cases in Canada.

In August 1994, I was an intern reporter with the Montreal Gazette when I requested a database of construction permits from the City of Montreal. I was strung along for a few months before filing a formal access to information request in the first week of December 1995. The final word from the city's access commissioner came in February 1995: "No way, Jose."

So, off I went to the Commission d'accès l'information (du Quebec). Backlogs in the commission's system meant that I was not offered a hearing until mid-October.

In the meantime, I had moved from Montreal to Toronto to start my current job. The commission didn't find me at my old address, and I did not hear about my date until the day before. I couldn't go, so my date was rescheduled to Dec. 8, 1995.

The decision

I waited and waited for the decision. Finally, on Feb. 7, I received a certified mail envelope with the decision. Nervously, I flipped to the end of the four-page decision. Here, I read the wonderful words (for those of you who read French):

"POUR CES MOTIFS: La Commission ACCUEILLE la demande de revision et ORDONNE l'organisme de communiquer au demandeur la base des données qui contient les demandes pour les permis de construction sous forme sortie informatique."

That means I won, and the city was ordered to give me the database.

The issues

For those of you who are interested in the legal issues:

The city argued that while they accepted the information I wanted was public information, the structure and organization of the database was such that protected information that I did not seek was mixed up in the same file matrix. They argued that to extract the information I sought would require them to create a new document, a software program. Article 15 of the Access to Information Act says no organization has to create a new document. I argued that in no way was the programming required to manipulate a database included in the sense of "a new document" as mentioned in the Act. The judge ruled in my favor.

She wrote:

"Avec égard, je ne crois pas qu'il s'agisse d'un cas de l'application de l'article 15 de la loi. Les renseignements que desire le demandeur existent. Aucun calcul ni comparaison l'est necessaire au sens de l'article 15 de la loi. Il ne s'agit pas de la creation d'un nouveau document mais d'une simple manipulation d'un programme informatique."

Basically, what she said is that the information exists; no calculation or comparison of data is required to create the information I wanted. This was not a case of creating a new document, but the simple manipulation of a computer program.

So, I won a case. Maybe it'll be a useful precedent for other reporters in Canada.

In preparing for my case, I was helped by the CAR Caucus of the Canadian Association of Journalists, especially Robert Washburn of the Cobourg Daily Star. They helped me get some pro bono legal advice from the LaFleur, Brown law firm in Montreal. Charles Bury of The Sherbrooke Record attended my hearing on behalf of the CAJ. Hope this bucks up the spirits of those of you engaged in similar legal battles. It takes a long time, but it is possible to win.

Mike Gordon can be reached at (416) 484-2600, ext. 2534, or send e-mail to mike_gordon@tvo.org