information on medical assisted suicide was excluded. This
exclusion was created by relating it to “identifying information”
and not all information related to assisted suicide.
 The test for infringement of the right to freedom of
expression has been articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada
in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General),
 1 S.C.R. 19,  S.C.J. No. 2, 2011 SCC 2, at para. 38.
Three questions must be considered:
(1) whether the activity contains expressive content, thereby
bringing it, prima facie, within the scope of s. 2(b) protection;
(2) whether it is excluded from protection by virtue either of its
location or of its method of expression; and
(3) whether the protected expressive activity is infringed by
either the purpose or the effect of government action.
 The above questions originated from the Supreme Court
of Canada’s decision in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 927,  S.C.J. No. 36, 1989 CanLII 87.
This was identified by the Supreme Court in Criminal Lawyers’
Assn. where the court confirmed that the main question was to
determine whether s. 2(b) is engaged at all when claiming a
right to access to documents. This requires the claimant to
demonstrate that there is expressive content in gaining access to
documents. The criterion of demonstrating expressive content
has been deemed to include situations where the denial of access
effectively precludes meaningful commentary on a matter of
 The Supreme Court in Criminal Lawyers’ Assn. has commented on the meaning of “meaningful commentary”, at para. 37:
In sum, there is a prima facie case that s. 2(b) may require disclosure of
documents in government hands where it is shown that, without the desired
access, meaningful public discussion and criticism on matters of public
interest would be substantially impeded. As Louis D. Brandeis famously
wrote in his 1913 article in Harper’s Weekly entitled “What Publicity
Can Do”: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. . . .” Open government requires that the citizenry be granted access to government records
when it is necessary to meaningful public debate on the conduct of government institutions.
 As an example of meaningful commentary, the Supreme
Court refers [at para. 36] to its decision in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and mentions the open court principle as being “
inextricably tied to the rights guaranteed by s. 2(b)” because