Background:

• The appellants sought injunctive relief and an extension of confidentiality and publication bans, challenging the Privacy Commissioner's preliminary findings under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act concerning their handling of personal information.

Legal Issues:

• Whether the Federal Court erred in denying injunctive relief and in its approach to confidentiality and publication bans, considering the appellants' claims of reputational harm and the potential mootness of their judicial review.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

• The Federal Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for injunctive relief and found the appellants did not demonstrate irreparable harm. The evidence provided was deemed general, unspecific, and inadequate.
• The Federal Court balanced the public interest in the Commissioner’s mandate against the appellants' claims and concluded that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the appellants.
• In terms of court openness, the Federal Court issued a restricted confidentiality order, mainly to protect the privacy of the complainant, while discontinuing the earlier publication ban.

Outcome:

• The appeal was dismissed. The Federal Court of Appeal found no legal error in the Federal Court’s decision and upheld the application of the law to the facts presented.
• The Court emphasized the importance of the open court principle, stating that confidentiality must be minimized even in cases where it is deemed necessary. The Court also highlighted the need for public versions of confidential material to be filed wherever possible.
• Costs to the respondent, fixed by agreement at $10,000 all inclusive.