I don't really think it pertains to the situation you're talking about.
It's perhaps useful to explain something about this provision. When we decided to include it, we consulted with operating agencies and departments, which revealed that some civil servants were reluctant to lawfully share information because they were afraid they would be found personally liable in terms of committing a criminal act for disclosing information. It was really done to help allay anxiety and to encourage responsible disclosure, charter-compliant disclosure.
The provision is there to inform public servants that they will be protected from civil liability if they disclose information in good faith, and that's why it was included. It shields individuals. It was not ever intended to shield the crown from immunity, and that may be something that people don't understand.
Individuals who are adversely affected by sharing could begin civil liability proceedings against the crown, which could be found vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, but it wouldn't protect them from criminal liability if they maliciously shared information. That's what that provision is for. I just thought I'd explain.