The printed material Correctional Service of Canada submitted in response to our information and privacy requests has been reviewed, along with Stephen Fineberg’s translations. Most of the reports, declarations, observations, and evaluations are in French. Just as with the video discs, the delay in analyzing the 40 pages CSC released shows our reluctance to confront what is a difficult event.
Nonetheless, before we comment, further consultation with Brennan Guigue is necessary.

In the meantime, our Montreal lawyer, impatient with the lack of any response from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to a complaint first filed last September, wrote again:-

Stephen Fineberg, Avocat/Attorney,
625, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest,
Suite 900,
Montreal, Québec,
H3B 1R2

February 15, 2016

Monsieur Jean Plamondon,
For the Registrar,
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,
30 Victoria Street, 1st Floor,
Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3

Re: Complaint re Privacy Request P-2014-04423
& Access Request A-2014-00314

Monsieur Plamondon:

On September 3, 2015, I wrote on behalf of my client, Mr. Brennan Guigue to file a complaint concerning the action taken by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) on my client’s Access and Privacy requests. In response you explained an authorization signed by Mr. Guigue was required for me to serve as his representative. Mr. Guigue accordingly forwarded such an authorization to your office. On November 13, 2015 I again wrote to file a complaint on his behalf. I am writing now to inquire if that complaint has indeed been initiated.

Furthermore, Mr. Guigue wishes to advise your office that he is convinced the video material forwarded by CSC did not include all the footage of him that was recorded by the hand-held camera. To be more specific, he believes CSC has withheld relevant material which the hand-held camera recorded subsequent to the footage which was shared. He asks that your office take this into consideration in your examination of the existing footage of the incident in question.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fineberg
Counsel to Brennan Guigue

Now, while Mr. Fineberg didn’t suggest I intervene, I also wrote to underscore the point he made in his letter:

February 19, 2016

Mr. Jean Plamondon,
For the Registrar,
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,
30 Victoria Street, 1st Floor,
Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3

Re: Your file 041614
Complaint re Privacy Request P-2014-04423
& Access Request A-2014-00314
Brennan Wayne Guigue

Dear Sir:

I have a copy of Stephen Fineberg’s February 15th follow-up to his November 13, 2014 letter filing a complaint on behalf on Brennan Guigue.

I am Brennan’s father. While I don’t expect your office to include me in your correspondence on this matter, I am compelled to comment on the outrageous behaviour of Correctional Service of Canada.

CSC responded to a request for video files by providing five discs. The same 32 minutes and 26 seconds is readable on the first four. All other information is unavailable. Those 32 minutes and 26 seconds set the stage for what the hand-held camera continued to record after, and the following 45 to 75 minutes at least are most relevant to Brennan’s complaint. Correctional Service of Canada is purposely withholding evidence of its culpability.

You should also note that both Correctional Service of Canada, and the Office of the Correctional Investigator, concluded from their investigation of this July 22, 2014 incident at RCC in Montreal that the level of force used was “inappropriate”.

We expect Correctional Service of Canada to substantiate their own conclusion with the video evidence for which we’ve asked.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

In a later comment on this ‘project’, Stephen intimated that it might be necessary to take this to court to obtain what we should have had in the first place.

And, as a by-the-way, this is apparently not unusual when trying to wrench something from the government’s fingers. Outliving a complainant seems a legitimate ploy from our public servants.