Let me begin by saying no. Subsection 10(1) was not at issue when we received the complaint. Even if it had been, I doubt that subsection 10(1) is relevant to the information that was obtained in a restaurant. According to the provision, “a Member shall not use information obtained in his position as a Member”. As a rule, suites are not available to the public, but the evidence shows that many charitable organizations had used the suite. Wait, just let me finish.
More importantly, we have to look at the second part of subsection 19(1). Did receiving the information further the member's private interests or those of a member of his or her family? No family member was involved in this matter. Did the information improperly further another person's or entity's private interests? These questions were addressed within the framework of section 8, which we also examined. We considered whether there had been a conflict of interest of some kind. That is the test as far as conflicts of interest go. We determined that there was no such conflict of interest. As for private interests, you have to look at how this expression is defined in the code. The definition specifically refers to a person acquiring a financial interest.