Opening Closed Doors: Fédération autonome de l'enseignement c. Commission scolaire de Laval, 2014 QCCA 591

A background check on a teacher reveals criminal history. He is fired by the elected members of the local school board after a meeting held behind closed doors. He contests the decision and seeks to question three of the commissioners before an arbitrator. They refuse, citing privilege. Unsuccessfully, as it turns out: Fédération autonome de l'enseignement c. Commission scolaire de Laval, 2014 QCCA 591.

Public Interest Immunity and Good Record Management

Where disclosure of documents would be detrimental to the public interest, courts have the power to refuse it (see e.g. here). So-called public interest immunity is a hugely important topic, especially where the powers of public bodies are concerned. The issue very recently divided a very strong bench of the Federal Court of Appeal in an important case, Slansky v. Canadian Judicial Council, 2013 FCA 199 (not yet on FCA website; link courtesy of Rob Centa).

The division sheds light on the nature of public interest immunity and how best courts might respond to claims that information should not be disclosed. In particular, their power to manage the judicial-review record might be usefully employed to minimize the damage to the rule of law that sweeping claims of immunity can do.