Canada Post (Re), 2025 OIC 40

Date: 2025-07-09
OIC file number: 5824-00495
Access request number: A-2023-00107

Summary

The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under subsections 19(1) (personal information) and 18.1(1) (trade secrets of Canada Post; confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post) and paragraphs 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations) and 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The complainant also alleged that Canada Post did not search for the records requested and/or that additional records responsive to the request must exist. The request was for records related to the decisions to change Iqaluit’s mailing service from PO Box addressing to civic addressing. Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

While Canada Post provided some representations, it did not respond to the specific questions asked. It therefore did not provide evidence on key points. Canada Post did not show that certain information met all the requirements of subsection 18.1(1), specifically, that the information was a trade secret or that the information was confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post.

Canada Post also did not explain how it had conducted a reasonable search for records.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Canada Post disclose certain information and conduct an additional search.

Canada Post gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order.

The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]        The complainant alleged that Canada Post improperly withheld information under the following provisions of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request:

• subsection 19(1) (personal information);
• subsection 18.1(1) (trade secrets of Canada Post, confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post);
• paragraph 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations); and
• paragraph 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations).

[2]        The complainant also alleged that Canada Post did not search for the records requested and/or that additional records responsive to the request must exist.

[3]        Both allegations fall under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[4]        The access request was for records related to the decisions to change Iqaluit’s mailing service from PO Box addressing to civic addressing.

[5]        During the investigation, the complainant decided it was no longer necessary for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) to examine the application of subsection 19(1) to withhold information pertaining to individuals who are not public servants.

Investigation

[6]        When an institution withholds information under an exemption, it bears the burden of showing that refusing to grant access is justified.

[7]        On April 11, 2025, Canada Post disclosed information it conceded did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), including information related to public servants and/or belonging to the Government of Canada, and also disclosed some information that it had previously withheld under subsection 18.1(1) and paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).

[8]        The complainant informed the OIC that they were not satisfied with the additional records, as no financial information had been released. The complainant informed the OIC that the remainder of the complaint was limited to any financial information in the records. Canada Post continued to withhold the remaining information at issue in this complaint under subsection 18.1(1).

Subsection 18.1(1): trade secrets of Canada Post, confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information of Canada Post

[9]        Subsection 18.1(1) allows institutions to refuse to disclose trade secrets or confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information belonging to the Canada Post Corporation, Export Development Canada, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board and VIA Rail Canada Inc.

[10]      To claim this exemption with regard to trade secrets, institutions must show the following:

• The information is a trade secret—that is, a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound that possesses all four of the following characteristics:
  • It is secret—that is, it is known only by one or a relatively small number of people.
  • The institution intended to treat the information as secret.
  • The information has industrial or commercial application.
  • The institution has an interest worthy of legal protection (that is, an economic interest).
• The trade secret belongs to one of the four above-named institutions.
• That institution has consistently treated the information as confidential.

[11]      To claim this exemption with regard to financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, institutions must show the following:

• The information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical.
• The information belongs to one of the four above-named institutions.
• That institution has consistently treated the information as confidential.

[12]      When these requirements are met, institutions must then reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

[13]      However, subsection 18.1(2) specifically prohibits institutions from using subsection 18.1(1) to refuse to disclose information that relates to the following:

• the general administration of the four above-named institutions, including information related to travel, lodging and hospitality expenses (as per section 3.1); or
• any activity carried out by the Canada Post Corporation that is fully funded out of parliamentary appropriations (the Consolidated Revenue Fund).

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[14]      Canada Post relied on subsection 18.1(1) to withhold information on pages 175-182.

[15]      My office sought representations from Canada Post on several points, including how the information on pages 175-182 does not fall under the exceptions to the exemption under subsection 18.1(2).

[16]      While Canada Post provided some representations throughout the investigation, Canada Post did not provide representations in response to my office’s specific questions in the request for representations under paragraph 35(2)(b). Canada Post therefore failed to provide sufficient evidence on key points.

[17]      Since it remains unclear whether Canada Post was claiming that the information is a trade secret, or is financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, I have examined both circumstances.

[18]      Having reviewed the information at issue and considered the limited representations received, I am not satisfied that any of the information at issue is a “trade secret” within the ordinary meaning of the term. More specifically, it is not clear how any of the information withheld under subsection 18.1(1) constitutes “a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound” that is not only secret and intended to be treated as such, but also has industrial or commercial application over which Canada Post has an economic interest worthy of legal protection. Consequently, it is my view that it is not necessary to examine whether the other requirements of a “trade secret” are met.

[19]      Canada Post indicated that the records are sensitive, strategic financial and commercial records of a substantial value to the corporation. I have gone on to consider whether any of the information at issue is financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to and has consistently been treated as confidential by Canada Post.

[20]      I accept that the information on pages 175-182 is financial, commercial, scientific or technical information belonging to the institution.

[21]      Turning to the next requirement of subsection 18.1(1), it is clear that the records were prepared by and belong to Canada Post.

[22]      I am also satisfied that the information withheld under subsection 18.1(1) has consistently been treated as confidential by Canada Post.

[23]      Canada Post represented that it keeps this information confidential to ensure that its competitive and business strategies remain protected.

[24]      However, subsection 18.1(2) specifically prohibits institutions from using subsection 18.1(1) to refuse to disclose information that relates to the general administration of Canada Post. As per the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), since the term “general administration” is not further defined in the Act, it takes its ordinary meaning: the management functions associated with administering an organization.

[25]      Information that relates to the general administration of the four Crown corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries includes information related to human resources, training and development, information management and technology, management activities (including strategic planning and performance management, audits and evaluations), management of assets, security and any other information related to the management of the institution. These are generally the costs a corporation incurs to maintain its day-to-day operations and are not tied directly to specific operational functions. These expenses can include rent and utilities for facilities, telephone and internet costs, office supplies, expenses relating to human resources, public relations, internal support services, and travel expenses.

[26]      Information on pages 175-182, as described above, appears to pertain to the management of assets (i.e. the Iqaluit Post Office). Such information appears to be related to the general administration of Canada Post Corporation as described by TBS. Canada Post has failed to provide evidence to establish that the records on pages 175 to 182 do not fall under the exception set out in subsection 18.1(2).

[27]      In light of the above, I conclude that the information on pages 175-182 does not meet the requirements of the exemption.

Reasonable search

[28]      Canada Post was required to conduct a reasonable search for records that fall within the scope of the access request—that is, one or more experienced employees, knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request, must have made reasonable efforts to identify and locate all records reasonably related to the request.

[29]      A reasonable search involves a level of effort that would be expected of any fair, sensible person tasked with searching for responsive records where they are likely to be stored.

[30]      This search does not have to be perfect. An institution is therefore not required to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. Institutions must however be able to show that they took reasonable steps to identify and locate responsive records.

Did the institution conduct a reasonable search for records?

[31]      I have reviewed limited documentation related to Canada Post’s search for responsive records. Five Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) were tasked to search for responsive records. 

[32]      The documentation I have received to date shows that at least one of the named employees was no longer with Canada Post when the search was initiated, and there appear to be few responsive records involving that employee. I therefore questioned whether Canada Post had taken reasonable steps to locate records involving any former employees.

[33]      My office sought representations from Canada Post on the following points:

• The specific steps Canada Post took to identify and locate all the responsive records, including keywords used to locate records and the repositories searched.
• How the parameters and scope of the search were interpreted and whether they were broad enough to likely capture all the responsive records.
• Descriptions of whether physical locations, program areas, or specific databases areas were searched.
• Why the OPIs that were tasked were the most likely to have responsive records and why other OPIs of Canada Post were not tasked.
• The retention and disposition schedules that would apply to the records requested and whether responsive records were destroyed at any point.
• Whether it was possible to retrieve emails from an employee who has left Canada Post.
• Whether Canada Post considered the need to search for any records stored off-site or in the possession of a third party but still under the institution’s control.
• The nature of a record that was deemed to be not relevant to the request, and why it was not included with the response.
• Why Canada Post believed no more records responsive to the request exist beyond those which were found.

[34]      Canada Post did not provide representations in response to the request for representations under paragraph 35(2)(b) on its search for records or why there were few responsive records from one of the individuals named in the request.

[35]      Since Canada Post has not provided further representations, it was not possible to conclude that Canada Post conducted a reasonable search for records.

Outcome

[36]      The complaint is well founded since Canada Post:

• Conceded that some information did not meet the requirements of subsection 19(1), including information related to public servants and/or belonging to the Government of Canada, and also disclosed some information that it had previously withheld under subsection 18.1(1) and paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b).
• Failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that subsection 18.1(1) was applicable to records on pages 175 to 182, and failed to show that the records did not fall under subsection 18.1(2), specifically:
  • Records that were not demonstrated to be trade secrets; and
  • Records that relate to the general administration of Canada Post as described under subsection 18.1(2).
• Failed to provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable search for records has been conducted.

Orders and recommendations

I order the President of Canada Post to:

1. Disclose the information on pages 175-182.
2. Conduct a new search for records that respond to the access request.
3. Provide a new response to the complainant once the search is complete, no later than 36 business days after the date of the final report.
4. Give access to any additional records, unless access to them, or to part of them, may be refused under a specific provision(s) of Part 1 of Act. When this is the case, name the provision(s).
5. If no additional responsive records are located during the search, indicate in the response how and where the search was conducted and why no such records were identified.

Initial report and notice from institution

On June 6, 2025, I issued my initial report to the President of Canada Post setting out my order.

On July 7, 2025, the Manager of Access to Information and Privacy gave me notice that Canada Post would be implementing the order and had already conducted a new search for records.

Review by Federal Court

When an allegation in a complaint falls under paragraph 30(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Act, the complainant has the right to apply to the Federal Court for a review. When the Information Commissioner makes an order(s), the institution also has the right to apply for a review. Whoever applies for a review must do so within 35 business days after the date of this report and serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43. If no one applies for a review by this deadline, the order(s) takes effect on the 36th business day after the date of this report.