Selim v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 ABQB 562

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Selim v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 ABQB 562 Date: 20161006 Docket: 1603 06962 Registry: Edmonton Between: Yaser Khedr Selim Plaintiff - and - Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (FOIP) Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] Mr. Selim “appeals” the decision of the Information and Privacy Commissioner who refused to conduct an inquiry into records of the Calgary Police Service relating to a female model known as JC . This court hears Mr. Selim’s application as one for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. [ 2 ] A Calgary Police Service detective initiated contact with Mr. Selim about Mr. Selim’s attempts to locate a female model known as JC. The detective and Mr. Selim then exchanged a large number of emails and telephone conversations over a period of 7

months in 2013. During that time, the detective suggested that Mr. Selim write a letter to JC and the detective would deliver it to JC. Subsequently Mr. Selim received a response letter, purportedly from JC, postmarked from Juneau, Alaska where the detective had told Mr. Selim that JC currently resided with her family. When, in November 2013, the detective refused any continued contact with Mr. Selim, the latter made a FOIP request to the Calgary Police Service for information about JC. CPS responded to Mr. Selim that it had no records on JC. Mr.

Selim then requested a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the CPS response. The Commissioner authorized a Commission staff member to conduct an investigation and to attempt to settle the dispute. The attempt at settlement was not successful. Invoking s. 69 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Selim then requested the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into his original request for records.

On July 20, 2015, the Commissioner asked the CPS to submit to it a sworn document by no later than August 19, 2015, setting out the specific steps that by CPS to identify and locate records responsive to Mr. Selim’s access request. On August 18, 2015, CPS submitted a declaration to the effect that it had made inquiries of the detective in question who had asserted that all communications had been conducted only in a personal capacity, that no police records existed relative to JC and that all information the detective had provided to Mr.

Selim was “to attempt to assuage a person suffering from delusional thinking”. CPS did not provide to the Commissioner any information about the fabricated letter. After considering the declaration received from CPS, in January 2016, the Commissioner informed Mr. Selim that she relied on the declaration from CPS, that the detective had never been in contact with anyone having the initials JC and so there could be no CPS records relating to JC. The Commissioner therefore refused to conduct an inquiry into the existence of records relating to JC, and closed the file. Mr.

Selim now asks for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. [ 3 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed: the Commissioner’s decision was reasonable. [ 4 ] The applicable standard of review is reasonableness: that standard has been adopted in similar situations and is appropriate where, as here, the Commissioner has a statutory discretion to order an inquiry. [ 5 ] Even though the Commissioner did not receive information about all of the communications between the CPS and Mr.

Selim, and even though, arguably, the evidence about those communications does not meet the requirements of the Alberta Evidence Act – it may be that the provisions of that Act relating to affirmations should be reviewed by the Legislature - and even though the evidence on which the Commissioner relied was not independent from the public body whose records were being sought, the Commissioner was entitled to conclude that there were no CPS records relating to JC: - evidence of the conduct of the CPS detective that was not presented to the Commissioner was of the same type as the evidence which was presented and the explanation of the detective that he had lied to Mr.

Selim throughout applies equally to the unpresented evidence; - the deposition from the employee of the Calgary Police Service was obviously intended to be a legally binding statement and one which was to have the same effect in relation to perjury as a statement given under oath; - the evidence relied on by the Commissioner was not independent from CPS and therefore did not advance the objective set out in s. 2(

e) of FOIPPA, but the evidence presented included Mr. Selim’s communications with CPS from which the context of the relationship could be discerned; - the situation outlined in Mr. Selim’s own communications was of a matter having nothing to do with any Canadian police investigation into any alleged criminal behaviour. Objectively, relying on Mr.

Selim’s own evidence, there was no reason for the CPS to open a file; - the detective made a voluntary statement against interest, acknowledging that he had abused his position as a police officer in order to advance a personal cause, and had, in doing so, repeatedly and consistently lied to Mr. Selim. As we know from criminal process, statements against interest are likely to be reliable.

Cases and authority cited [ 6 ] By the Commissioner : Carter v Information and Privacy Commissioner September 9, 2011, Aon No. 1001-17312 [ 7 ] By the CPS : Order F2015-35 , University of Calgary , Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Case File Number F7544 [ 8 ] By the court : Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association 2010 SCC 23 ; Alberta Teachers' Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) 2011 ABQB 19 ; R. v Hatchard 2016 BCCA 134 . 1. Background

a) Factual [ 9 ] Mr. Selim is a middle-aged man who was born outside of Canada. He was scammed out of $2,000.00 by con men who used photographs of women as bait. Mr. Selim came to believe that the woman whose photograph was used to con him was herself a victim. Mr. Selim became obsessed with that woman, known only by the initials JC. [ 10 ] The chronology of Mr. Selim’s interaction with the Calgary Police Service is outlined in the affidavit of the CPS detective who dealt with him.

This affidavit was presented to the court at the court’s request for additional information about material which had not been seen by the Commissioner. In May 2013 a friend of mine who lives in Hawaii contacted me because she and her employees at the modeling agency she ran were being inundated with telephone calls and emails from Mr. Yaser Selim. She advised me that Mr. Selim was continually contacting and harassing the agency inquiring about an individual by the name of JC whose picture was on the modelling website. As a favour to my friend, I contacted Mr.

Selim to discuss his actions as they related to the modelling agency in Hawaii. I tried to explain

to him what criminal harassment was and that he needed to stop contacting the agency in Hawaii. My friend from the modelling agency advised me that JC had not been with the agency for over 8 years and that they had no contact information for her. I believe that information was true and I passed that information on to Mr. Selim in the hopes that it would convince him not to contact the agency further. I did not open a police investigation file or initiate any formal CPS documentation. ,,, In an attempt to dissuade Mr. Selim from pursuing JC I advised Mr.

Selim that JC had moved to Alaska where she lived happily with her family. I picked Alaska because I wanted to give Mr. Selim the impression that JC had attempted to withdraw to a remote place and live quietly with her family. This information was fabricated by me in an attempt to cause Mr. Selim to lose interest in JC. . . . Mr. Selim provided me a letter to JC and I fabricated a response that advised Mr. Selim that JC was happily married and could not reciprocate Mr. Selim’s affections. I tried to make the letter convincing, again with the intention that it would cause Mr. Selim to lose interest in JC. . . .

I did not consider at the time the depth of the deception I was engaged in and the potential negative consequences it could have. . . . An acquaintance of mine was going to Alaska on a cruise. I provided the letter that I had drafted pretending to be JC to my acquaintance who agreed to mail it for me. That is why the letter to Mr. Selim has a postmark from Juneau Alaska. . I understand now that my actions in deceiving Mr.

Selim caused him to become convinced that the Calgary Police Service had records that included information about how to contact [J.C.] There are no such records. [ 11 ] Because there were a number of telephone conversations between the detective and Mr. Selim, and because all of Mr. Selim’s written communications with the detective were not retained, it is not possible to have a complete outline of the relationship between the two. However, the following might be noted: - from the outset, i.e. May 8, 2013, Mr.

Selim demonstrated a tendency to bombard the detective with short bursts of messages; - the detective’s May 9, 2013 email to Mr. Selim used language such as, “investigation completed”, “update on your file”, “completed my preliminary investigation and can now report to you”; - on May 13, 2013, the detective asks Mr. Selim to provide his full name, age and birth date so that the detective can “update my records associated with this investigation”; - on May 23, 2013, the detective writes to Mr. Selim under the heading “JC and Phase 2 of the Investigation”; - on July 30, 2013, after having told Mr.

Selim that he will take no further telephone calls from him, the detective writes to Mr. Selim, “I will still prepare and forward the transcript of my conversation with JC . . . taking no further action”; - on August 7, 2013, the detective sent to Mr. Selim some photos which he described as “possibly being more photos of JC”; - on August 16, 2013, the detective asks Mr. Selim for his mailing address so that JC can write to Mr. Selim; - on September 19, 2013, the detective tells Mr. Selim “I will phone [JC] if we haven’t heard anything by next Thursday”; - on September 22, 2013, the detective writes to Mr.

Selim: “I look forward to discussing Tagged matter with you next week”; - on September 24, 2013, the detective writes to Mr. Selim about the letter Mr. Selim received from purportedly JC, but in reality one which the detective had fabricated; - on September 25, 2013, stating that he had received 27 emails from Mr. Selim since the previous day, the detective writes to Mr. Selim that their “work together is finished”; - on November 14, 2013, the detective writes to Mr. Selim, “I will never communicate with JC again”. [ 12 ] All of the detective’s written communications with Mr.

Selim issued from the CPS website, with the CPS insignia. [ 13 ] In January 2014, Mr. Selim made a FOIP request to the Calgary Police Service with respect to records from someone named JC. In February 2014, CPS responded to Mr. Selim stating that it had asked the detective for records and the detective had answered that there were no records and that CPS was therefore closing its file. [ 14 ] In that initial investigation by CPS, the detective told CPS staff:

. . . I did not conduct an investigation. I was using official sounding language to attempt to assuage a person suffering from delusional thinking. My goal was to have [Mr. Selim] cease obsessing about this person. The details I shared with him were not factual personal information and were crafted to attempt to cause him to give up his obsession . . . [ 15 ] In June 2014, Mr. Selim asked the Commissioner for a review of the CPS position. In August 2014, the Commissioner authorized one of its staff members to “investigate and try to settle this matter”.

As apparently is its practice when this step is taken, the Commissioner does not receive a copy of any investigation report and obviously does not receive information about the attempts at a settlement other than the information about whether the attempt was successful or not successful. In this case, since the attempt at settlement was not successful, Mr. Selim was presumably told that the Commissioner’s review was complete.

Because the Commissioner does not receive either a copy of the investigation or of the result of the settlement process, none of that information is contained in the Commissioner’s Record of Proceedings, or return, on the judicial review application. [ 16 ] In February, 2015, being dissatisfied with the review, Mr. Selim asked the Commissioner for an inquiry. As is apparently its practice, the office of the Commissioner then asked CPS “to provide a sworn statement about the search it conducted” by August 19, 2015.

On August 18, 2015, CPS provided an affidavit affirmed by a senior disclosure analyst and civilian member of the Calgary Police Service who met with the detective in question on August 18, 2015 and who was informed by the detective that: - he “does not know who JC is, nor does he have any additional information regarding JC”; - he had communicated by email with Mr. Selim “but always in his personal capacity”; - “any information that appears to be about JC such as her marital status, or place of residence was fabricated in an attempt to encourage [Mr.

Selim] to move on and stop trying to pursue JC”. [ 17 ] The CPS did not provide to the Commissioner information about the detective’s proposing that he receive from Mr. Selim a letter addressed to JC and thereafter misleading Mr. Selim about the delivery of that letter, or about the fabrication by the detective of a purported response letter from JC to Mr. Selim, or about the fact that the detective arranged for the fabricated letter to be mailed from Juneau, Alaska to make his deception appear more realistic.

The CPS did not make it clear to the Commissioner that all of the written correspondence between the detective and Mr. Selim was on a Calgary Police Service computer, using a CPS address and CPS insignia. Nor did the CPS provide to the Commissioner information about the extensive telephone communications between Mr. Selim and the detective. [ 18 ] On January 25, 2016, or two years after Mr. Selim’s FOIP request, the Commissioner provided the following decision to Mr. Selim concerning his request for an inquiry: My decision It appears that as a result of interactions between [Mr. Selim] and [the detective], [Mr.

Selim] believed that [the detective] had been in contact with JC and was seeking records about that contact. As is evident from the affidavit of the Senior Disclosure Analyst, [the detective] had never been in contact with anyone having the initials “JC”, and so there could be no records about JC that [Mr. Selim} requested. Based on the affidavit, I find that the CPS conducted an adequate search for records that [Mr. Selim] requested. I am therefore refusing to conduct an inquiry on that issue and have closed [the file].

b) Legislative [ 19 ] The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contains the following provisions: Division 1 Reviews by the Commissioner Right to ask for a review 65(1) A person who makes a request to the head of a public body for access to a record or for correction of personal information may ask the Commissioner to review any decision, act or failure to act of the head that relates to the request. . . . Mediation may be authorized 68 The Commissioner may authorize a mediator to investigate and try to settle any matter that is the subject of a request for a review. Inquiry by Commissioner 69(1) Unless

section 70 applies, if a matter is not settled under

section 68, the Commissioner must conduct an inquiry and may decide all questions of fact and law arising in the course of the inquiry.

(2) An inquiry under subsection (1) may be conducted in private.

(3) The person who asked for the review, the head of the public body concerned and any other person given a copy of the request for the review must be given an opportunity to make representations to the Commissioner during the inquiry, but no one is entitled to be present during, to have access to or to comment on representations made to the Commissioner by another person.

(4) The Commissioner may decide whether the representations are to be made orally or in writing.

(5) The person who asked for the review, the head of the public body concerned and any other person given a copy of the request for the review may be represented at the inquiry by counsel or an agent.

(6) An inquiry under this

section must be completed within 90 days after receiving the request for the review unless the Commissioner (

a) notifies the person who asked for the review, the head of the public body concerned and any other person given a copy of the request for the review that the Commissioner is extending that period, and (

b) provides an anticipated date for the completion of the review. Refusal to conduct an inquiry 70 The Commissioner may refuse to conduct an inquiry pursuant to

section 69 if in the opinion of the Commissioner (

a) the subject-matter of a request for a review under

section 65 has been dealt with in an order or investigation report of the Commissioner, or (

b) the circumstances warrant refusing to conduct an inquiry. [ 20 ] The Alberta Evidence Act contains the following provisions relating to oaths and affirmations: Oaths and Affirmations Form, etc., of oath 14(1) When an oath may lawfully be administered to a person (

a) as a witness or as a deponent in an action, (

b) on appointment to an office or employment, (

c) on any occasion whatever, that person is bound by the oath administered if it has been administered in a form and with any ceremonies that the person may declare to be binding.

(2) When an oath is duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom it was administered has at the time of taking the oath no religious belief does not for any purpose affect the validity of the oath.

Administration of oath 15(1) An oath may be administered in the form and manner following: The person taking the oath shall hold the Bible or New Testament, or Old Testament in the case of an adherent of the Jewish religion, in the person’s uplifted hand and the officer administering the oath shall say: “You swear that the evidence you give as touching the matters in question in this action or matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So help you God”, to which the person being sworn shall say “I do” or give his or her assent to it in a manner satisfactory to the court or to the officer administering the oath. 2) Without in any way limiting or restricting the manner in which an oath may be administered, the oath may be taken or sworn on any one of the 4 Gospels.

Scottish oath 16 If a person to whom an oath is to be administered desires to swear with uplifted hand in the form and manner in which an oath is usually administered in Scotland the person shall be permitted to do so, and the oath shall be administered to the person in that form and manner without further question.

Affirmation, etc., instead of oath 17(1) If, in an action or on an occasion when an oath is required or permitted, a person called as a witness, or required or desiring to give evidence or to make an affidavit or deposition, objects to taking an oath or is objected to as incompetent to take an oath, if the presiding judge or the person qualified to take affidavits or depositions is satisfied that the witness or deponent objects to being sworn (

a) from conscientious scruples, (

b) on the ground of the religious belief of the witness or deponent, or (

c) on the ground that the taking of an oath would have no binding effect on the conscience of the witness or deponent, the witness or deponent may make an affirmation and declaration instead of taking an oath.

(2) The affirmation and declaration of that person is of the same force and effect as if that person had taken an oath in the usual form.

(3) When the evidence is in the form of an affidavit or written deposition, the person before whom it is taken shall certify that the deponent satisfied the person that the deponent was a person entitled to affirm.

Statutory declaration 18 Any person authorized by law to administer oaths or to take affidavits in any matter may receive the solemn declaration of any person making it before the authorized person, in the following form, in attestation of the execution of any writing, deed or instrument or of the truth of any fact or of any account rendered in writing: I, , solemnly declare that (state the fact or facts declared to), and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath.

Declared before me at this __ day of ____ , 20 . 2. The standard of review of the Commissioner’s decision is reasonableness [ 21 ] The decision about whether or not an inquiry will be undertaken is deep within the core of the Commissioner’s rights and responsibilities. The statute itself gives to the Commissioner discretion to refuse to conduct an inquiry. As much case law has decided, the appropriate standard of review in such situations is reasonableness: see, for example, Criminal Lawyers’ Association at para. 70. 3. The Commissioner’s refusal to conduct an inquiry is not unreasonable

a) General principles of

interpretation of the Commissioner’s obligation to hold an inquiry [ 22 ] In deciding whether the Commissioner’s decision not to hold an inquiry was reasonable, I begin with a purposive

interpretation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Act itself sets out its objectives: Purposes of this Act 2 The purposes of this Act are (

a) to allow any person a right of access to the records in the custody or under the control of a public body subject to limited and specific exceptions as set out in this Act, . . . (

e) to provide for independent reviews of decisions made by public bodies under this Act and the resolution of complaints under this Act. [ 23 ] In this case, Mr. Selim was seeking information which he believed was contained in records of the Calgary Police Service. We are therefore dealing with purpose 2(

a) of the statute. [ 24 ] As the Supreme Court of Canada succinctly put it in Criminal Lawyers’ Association : Access to information in the hands of public institutions can increase transparency in government, contribute to an informed public, and enhance an open and democratic society. [ 25 ] With this background informing the

interpretation of the statute, we better understand my colleague Graesser J.’s conclusion, in Alberta Teachers’ Association , that the statute establishes a default position on the holding of inquiries, which is that the Commissioner must hold an inquiry: 114. . . .

Under FOIPPA, if the matter has not been resolved at the mediation stage, the Commissioner must hold a hearing : 115 It seems clear that the default position under FOIPPA is that there must be an inquiry. [Emphasis in original] [ 26 ] However, as Graesser J. goes on to state: The Commissioner has a discretion to not hold an inquiry and an exercise of such discretion would surely have to be explained because the Commissioner would essentially be making a final decision. [ 27 ] I agree with Graesser J.’s

interpretation of the statute. [ 28 ] The situation here is not one where the public body, the Calgary Police Service, has records but invokes some basis on which it should not be required to produce the records. The CPS senior disclosure analyst who provided evidence to the Commissioner included the following paragraph in her statutory declaration: Even if the Calgary Police Service did have [information about JC], which it does not, it could not be supplied to [Mr. Selim].

Based on my training and experience asa Senior Disclousre Analyst and my review of the FOIPP Act, I am of the view that the information requested by [Mr. Selim] would be an unreasonable violation of the personal privacy of the third party JC and therefore we would be

required to refuse disclosure of that information pursuant to s. 17(1) of the FOIPP Act. [ 29 ] If the situation had been that there were records, but the CPS refused to provide them to Mr. Selim, the Commissioner would presumably have had to consider the appropriateness of the public body’s refusal. However, on the facts of this case, that second level of potential consideration has no application. Rather, this is a situation where the CPS, and subsequently the Commissioner herself, have concluded that there are no records to be produced.

b) The Commissioner gave reasons for refusing to open an inquiry [ 30 ] The Commissioner did, as she was required to do, give reasons for not holding an inquiry. [ 31 ] Although the reasons given were somewhat terse, being limited to relying on an affidavit prepared by the very agency whose records were being sought, the reasons were sufficient to meet the obligation to explain to Mr. Selim why an inquiry was refused.

c) The reasons given by the Commissioner were reasonable [ 32 ] In assessing whether the Commissioner’s decision not to open an inquiry was reasonable, I must consider the evidence on which the Commissioner relied. (

i) The evidence presented to the Commissioner may not have technically met the requirements of the Alberta Evidence Act [ 33 ] The Commissioner asked the CPS to produce an affidavit. Although there is some language in some cases which suggests that an affidavit is a deposition made under oath or solemn declaration, the traditional meaning of affidavit is a deposition taken under oath: see, for example, Black’s Law Dictionary . [ 34 ] Unsurprisingly, the Alberta Evidence Act states that, where a statement under oath is required, a person may, instead, make an affirmation or declaration.

However, as can be seen from s. 17(3) and s. 18 of that Act, there are formalities which must be taken to make the affirmation as legally binding as would be an oath. [ 35 ] The necessity of presenting evidence pursuant to rigorous legislated standards is, obviously, important, not only because of the obligation to follow the statutory requirements but also to ensure the reliability of the evidence in the context that the deponent understands that a false affirmation will make the deponent liable to prosecution for perjury.

The provisions of the Canada Evidence Act which relate to the latter are ss. 14 and 15. [ 36 ] Here, there is no certification from the person who received the affirmation that the senior disclosure analyst in question was entitled to affirm.

Nor was the declaration taken from the deponent in the correct way, i.e. as a statutory declaration in which the deponent not only declares that the facts in the deposition are true, but solemnly declares it, and acknowledges that the declaration is of the same effect as if made under oath – i.e. that the deponent is subject to the prohibition against perjury. [ 37 ] Nonetheless, the way in which the deposition of the senior disclosure analyst was taken demonstrates an intention to make a solemn declaration for which she could be charged with perjury if it was false and the Commissioner was entitled to treat it as such. [ 38 ] I pause to observe that it may be timely for the Legislature to reassess the statutory requirements for affirmations and declarations. (ii) Although the Commissioner relied on evidence prepared by the very public body whose records were being sought, and therefore on evidence that was not independent, the Commissioner was entitled to rely on that evidence [ 39 ] It is surprising that, even though the Commissioner authorized a review of CPS position, and a review was presumably conducted, the Commissioner herself never received the results of that review. [ 40 ] One can certainly understand why the Commissioner does not receive any report on attempted settlement other, presumably, than a statement to the effect that the settlement efforts were successful or unsuccessful: it is long settled law that, for obvious policy reasons, attempts at settlement are privileged.

However, the fact that the content of the settlement efforts is privileged does not explain why the Commissioner does not receive a report from the senior information and privacy manager whom she authorized to investigate the matter of the Selim complaint. [ 41 ] One of the legislated objectives of FOIPPA is precisely to “provide for independent reviews of decisions”. The Commissioner’s staff appears to be the ideal independent investigator, but that independent investigation is never provided to the Commissioner.

Instead, when the review step is concluded without having given the person who made the original request satisfaction, the Commissioner then goes to the public body whose own records are being sought for evidence that an adequate search was conducted. (iii) The evidence provided to the Commissioner included evidence from Mr. Selim and the evidence from the latter discloses that there was no Canadian crime to investigate and no reason for the CPS to open a file [ 42 ] Mr.

Selim knew, from the outset, that the detective with whom he was dealing was attached to the homicide unit and that the detective was not in the process of investigating a homicide. [ 43 ] Unfortunately, we do not have a record of the detective’s first communication with Mr. Selim. However, Mr. Selim’s own correspondence makes it abundantly clear that he understood that the detective was not investigating a crime; all the detective was allegedly doing was trying to help Mr. Selim contact a woman. Helping someone to contact someone else is obviously not a police matter. Mr.

Selim should then have realized that it while it was possible that the detective had some information about the woman JC, there would be no reason to have a police file or record relating to JC.

(iv) The evidence provided to the Commissioner included evidence from the detective in which he acknowledged improper behaviour on his own part [ 44 ] Part of the evidence that was before the Commissioner was evidence from the detective who attempted to justify his conduct. At the same time, however, the detective made many admissions against interest: he had embarked on this charade as a favour to a friend, i.e. he had abused his authority as a police officer to advance the interest of a friend; he admitted having lied repeatedly, consistently and deliberately over a long period of time to Mr.

Selim and to having organized a relatively elaborate ruse to deceive Mr. Selim. The law, particularly the criminal law, has long recognized that individuals who make statements against their own interest are, more likely than not, making statements which can be relied on: see, for example, Hatchard .

Case law establishes that the principle applies to civil procedure as well. [ 45 ] In the result, having considered all of the material before me, for the reasons outline above, I have concluded that the Commissioner’s decision not to open an inquiry was reasonable and the application for judicial review is dismissed. 4. Costs [ 46 ] I can understand that Mr. Selim might find the conclusion that CPS have no records relating to JC hard to accept: he has been repeatedly and consistently lied to by a Calgary police detective and been made subject to a rather elaborate deception.

Because of that conduct, even though Mr. Selim has not been successful in his application for judicial review, he will not pay costs to either the CPS or the Commissioner. Heard on the 21 st day of September, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 6 th day of October, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Yaser Khedr Selim, on his own behalf Rob W. Armstong, QC, Calgary Police Service for the Calgary Police Service Keri H. Ridley, For the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner