Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 19

Date: 2026-02-11
OIC file number: 5820-04384
Access request number: A-2020-00928 / FM

Summary

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information), and paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request for records related to commercial fishing agreements between DFO and Eskasoni First Nation (EFN) between the years 2000 and 2020. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act. DFO and the third party did not show that some of the information met all of the requirements for paragraph 20(1)(b), and the risk of harm under paragraph 20(1)(c) was speculative. The Information Commissioner ordered that DFO disclose the information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) on specific pages, with the exception of the information that meets the requirements of subsection 19(1). DFO gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) had improperly withheld information under the following provisions of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request:

subsection 19(1) (personal information);
paragraph 20(1)(b) (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information); and
paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party).

[2]The request was for records related to commercial fishing agreements between DFO and Eskasoni First Nation (EFN) between the years 2000 and 2020. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Investigation

[3]When an institution withholds information that includes information related to a third party, the third party and/or the institution bear the burden of showing that refusing to grant access is justified.

[4]The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) gave EFN the opportunity under paragraph 35(2)(c) to provide representations showing why the information should not be disclosed. EFN did not respond to the request.

[5]During the investigation, DFO became aware that the signatures of certain EFN Band council members and chiefs, which it had withheld under subsection 19(1) when it responded to the access request, were publicly available. DFO then exercised its discretion to disclose the signatures. DFO continued to withhold the remaining information under subsection 19(1), paragraph 20(1)(b) and paragraph 20(1)(c).

[6]The complainant informed the OIC that they were not satisfied with the supplementary disclosure.

[7]The OIC notified EFN pursuant to subsection 36.3(1) of my intention to order DFO to disclose the information at issue under paragraph 20(1)(b) and paragraph 20(1)(c). In response, EFN represented that all of the information should remain withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), and indicated that other information pertaining to salaries of individuals should also be withheld under subsection 19(1).

Subsection 19(1): personal information

[8]Subsection 19(1) requires institutions to refuse to disclose personal information.

[9]To claim this exemption, institutions must show the following:

The information is about an individual—that is, a human being, not a corporation.
There is a serious possibility that disclosing the information would identify that individual.
The information does not fall under one of the exceptions to the definition of “personal information” set out in paragraphs 3(j) to 3(m) of the Privacy Act (for example, business contact information for public servants).

[10]When these requirements are met, institutions must then consider whether the following circumstances (listed in subsection 19(2)) exist:

The person to whom the information relates consents to its disclosure.
The information is publicly available.
Disclosure of the information would be consistent with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

[11]When one or more of these circumstances exist, subsection 19(2) of the Access to Information Act requires institutions to reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[12]DFO applied subsection 19(1) to withhold the following information:

Certain EFN witness signatures and signatures of chiefs and councillors on band council resolutions and agreements, fisheries agreements and contribution agreements
DFO witness signatures on fisheries agreements
The extension of a phone number and signature of an EFN director

[13]I am satisfied that the information which DFO redacted under subsection 19(1) is:

about an individual;
there is a serious possibility that disclosing the information would identify that individual; and
the information does not fall under one of the exceptions to the definition of “personal information” set out in paragraphs 3(j) to 3(m) of the Privacy Act.

[14]Consequently, I conclude that the information meets the requirements of the exemption.

Did the institution reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information?

[15]Since the information meets the requirements of subsection 19(1), DFO was required to reasonably exercise its discretion under subsection 19(2) to decide whether to disclose the information when one or more of the circumstances described in subsection 19(2) existed when it responded to the access request.

[16]Upon considering the information at issue, as well as the totality of representations made by DFO, I am satisfied that the information that remains withheld is not publicly available, consent was not provided to disclose the information, and disclosure would not be consistent with section 8 of the Privacy Act.

[17]I conclude that the circumstances set out in subsection 19(2) did not exist when DFO responded to the access request. There is no need to examine the issue of discretion.

Paragraph 20(1)(b): confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information

[18]Paragraph 20(1)(b) requires institutions to refuse to disclose confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information provided to a government institution by a third party (that is, a private company or individual, but not the person who made the access request).

[19]To claim this exemption, institutions must show the following:

The information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical.
The information is confidential.
The third party supplied the information to a government institution.
The third party has consistently treated the information as confidential.

[20]When these requirements are met, and the third party to whom the information relates consents to its disclosure, subsection 20(5) requires institutions to reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

[21]In addition, when the requirements are met, subsection 20(6) requires institutions to reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information for public health or public safety reasons, or to protect the environment, when both of the following circumstances (listed in subsection 20(6)) exist:

disclosure of the information would be in the public interest; and
the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any financial impact on the third party, any prejudice to the security of the third party’s structures, networks or systems, or competitive position, or any interference with its contractual or other negotiations.

[22]However, subsections 20(2) and 20(4) specifically prohibit institutions from using paragraph 20(1)(b) to refuse to disclose information that contains the results of product or environmental testing carried out by or on behalf of a government institution, unless the testing was done for a fee for an individual or an organization other than a government institution.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[23]Paragraph 20(1)(b) was applied to withhold information pertaining to government funding and projects to be carried out by EFN, contained within the following types of records (“the Agreements”):

Interim Fisheries Agreement (for example, p. 1)
Contribution Agreement Amendments (for example, p. 58)
Fisheries Agreements (for example, p. 105)
Fisheries Agreement Amendments (for example, p. 169)
Contribution Agreement for the Fisheries Operation Management Initiative (FOMI) (for example, p. 506)
Contribution Agreement for the At-Sea Mentor Deployment Initiative (for example, p. 359)
Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (AICFI) Contribution Agreements (for example, p. 627)
Atlantic Commercial Fisheries Diversification Initiative (ACFDI) Contribution Agreements (for example, p. 797)

[24]These agreements were signed by EFN and DFO between 2000 and 2020.

Is the information financial, commercial, scientific or technical?

[25]Regarding the first criterion for paragraph 20(1)(b), in the decision Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the terms “financial, commercial, scientific or technical” should be given their ordinary dictionary meanings.

[26]I am satisfied that much of the information at issue is financial and / or commercial information, as those terms are ordinarily understood. This includes budget allocation amounts, federal, provincial and community funding amounts, purchases and commercial quotes sourced by the third party, job titles which accompany salary information, and activity costs. Examples of this type of information can be found on pages 376, 417-420, 624, 1025-1028, 1056, 1442 and 1574.

[27]Information pertaining to quotes received from contractors along with descriptions of items related to those costs, suppliers and boat builders, as well as associated costs for services, including third party quotes, would qualify as financial and commercial information such as that found at pages 1393, 704-707.

[28]The first requirement for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) is therefore met for this and similar information.

[29]The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “technical” includes “having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject”, “marked by or characteristic of specialization”, “of or relating to a particular subject”, and “based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation.” Although the terms of the Agreements may be informed by specialized knowledge, such as technical or culturally-specific information, the content of the Agreement itself does not appear to be technical in nature. Rather, the agreements appear to deal in future activities planned by EFN to improve its fisheries operations and management practices, and to develop its commercial fishing enterprise through means including the acquisition of new equipment, new infrastructure, upgrades to current infrastructure, and the development and training of individuals for various salaried positions within the fisheries operations.

[30]Therefore, I am not convinced that other information that remains withheld in the records would meet this requirement of being financial, scientific, commercial or technical information as those terms are commonly understood, including general descriptions of projects and activities (p. 625), changes to the wording of proposed activities (for example, p. 58, 174, 811), caveats about how DFO pays out its funding (p. 831), the fact that DFO approved funding for certain activities (p. 790, 811, 812, 850, 1096) or general headers in the budget funding boxes.

[31]In its representations to my office, DFO conceded that certain information would not meet this first requirement for exemption, including information on pages 501, 625, 812, 832, 834, 851, 853, 932, 934, 935. 976, 978, 979, 1030, 1094, 1097, 1121, 1124, 1168, 1169, 1201, 1394, 1397, 1410, 1445, 1547, 1548, 1576, 1578 and 1579.

[32]The first requirement for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b) is therefore not met for some of the withheld information.

Is the information confidential?

[33]In order for paragraph 20(1)(b) to be applied, the record must be objectively confidential. In Air Atonabee Limited v. Canada (Minister of Transport), 27 F.T.R. 194, [1989] F.C.J. No. 453 (F.C.T.D.), the Federal Court outlined three specific sub-criteria, each of which must be met, for the information to be considered confidential.

the information is not otherwise available from public sources;
the information originates and is communicated with a reasonable expectation of confidence that it will not be disclosed; and
the relationship between the government and third party is not contrary to the public interest and will be fostered for public benefit by keeping the information confidential.

[34]Considering the first sub-criterion for confidentiality, I accept that the agreements between DFO and EFN are not themselves publicly available. However, I find that some of the information at issue within the agreements is available from public sources, or was available from public sources at the time the request was processed, including descriptions of some ongoing activities and the fact that financial assistance was provided for certain projects found within EFN’s annual financial reports, community newsletters and quarterly reports previously found on EFN’s website, including:

The fact that there was a 2011 acquisition of reefer and transport trucks funded by DFO (p. 811, 812)
The fact that EFN received funding from DFO for shrimp licenses (p. 850)
The fact that EFN was purchasing a vessel for the 2012 season (p. 1096)
The fact that funding was received from DFO for projects from 2010-2012 (p. 811, 812, 850, 790)

[35]Further, other publicly available information which can currently be found on the Government of Canada’s Grants and Contributions website includes ACIFI funding amounts from DFO to EFN corresponding to the withheld information on p. 791, 793, 1092 and 1574.

[36]Some information withheld on pages 1511-1514 and 1517-1519 of the response, including the DFO Cost Eligible Categories, budget lines and repair and maintenance costs, has been released previously by DFO through access request A-2019-00712 (p. 564-567 and 570-572 of that request), which is publicly available through Open By Default.

[37]Finally, many of the proposed activities, purchases and upgrades within the EFN community would be visible to community members as these would be observable changes to structures, equipment, and community engagement.

[38]DFO conceded that some information in the records was publicly available and would not meet this requirement for exemption, including information on pages 415, 417-419, 480-482, 484, 566-569, 577, 579, 581, 582, 624, 625, 665, 687, 688, 775, 874, 1056, 1057, 1092, 1120, 1130-1132, 1163, 1164, 1199, 1201, 1203, 1204, 1211, and 1212.

[39]I conclude that portions of the information, including funding amounts granted by DFO, and information as described as being on EFN’s website are publicly available and therefore do not meet the first sub-criterion of objective confidentiality. I accept that the remaining information is not publicly available, meeting the first sub-criterion for objective confidentiality.

[40]Considering the second sub-criterion for confidentiality, I note that a number of the agreements indicate that DFO would respect the confidentiality of any information provided or shared by the Recipient including section 7 of certain Fisheries Agreements, paragraph 16(9) of the Contribution Agreement for the Fisheries Operations Management Initiative, paragraph 17(9) of the Contribution Agreement for the At-Sea Mentor Deployment Initiative and section 6 of certain AICFI Contribution Agreements.

[41]Other agreement clauses are more specific about the expectation of confidentiality that the third party could expect from DFO - for example, section 3.1-3.3 of the AICFI Contribution agreements, the Fisheries Agreements, and the ACFDI Contribution Agreements which state:

(3.1) Subject to subsections 3.2 and 3.3 of this Schedule, DFO will respect the confidentiality of any information provided by the First Nation to, or shared with, DFO in confidence.

(3.2) Any information provided to DFO or shared by or with DFO under this Agreement will be subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

(3.3) The First Nation acknowledges and agrees that its name, the amount of the Contribution and the general nature of the Activities supported by this Agreement may be made publicly available by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.

[42]In explaining the confidentiality of the information, DFO represented that the records contain sensitive third party and commercial confidential information pertaining to economic development strategies, salary information, and collaborative work undertaken by EFN and DFO. DFO reinforced the importance of seeking and receiving the positive consent of Indigenous nations and organizations before disclosure, beyond the scope of section 3.3 in the agreements. DFO argued that opting for a “positive enrollment” approach (i.e. in the face of a lack of third-party representations) is not appropriate and would repeat a long history of forced Indigenous consent.

[43]However most, if not all of the agreements, include a provision stating the information provided by the third party is subject to the Access to Information Act. For the purposes of the Act, if information supplied by the third party does not meet the requirements of any particular exemption, the information should be disclosed.

[44]EFN told my office that the AFS agreements were negotiated between itself and DFO in a private and confidential manner through designated representatives. EFN indicated that negotiations were not undertaken in a public forum and that the confidential nature of discussions was a significant requirement in order for the agreements to be negotiated without hindrance.

[45]Based on the above, I agree that the information, such as funding amounts towards projects, salary information, and other financial allocations towards EFN projects, has been provided to DFO in confidence, with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

[46]Finally, the third sub-criterion for confidentiality requires that the relationship between the government and the third party be either fiduciary or not contrary to the public interest, and that it will be fostered for public benefit by keeping the information confidential. In its representations, DFO argued that disclosing the record would have a detrimental effect on the ability of DFO, and by extension the Crown, to successfully negotiate agreements with EFN in the future. DFO represented that keeping the information confidential is essential to communication and collaboration between First Nations Governments and the Federal Government, and that it is in the public interest to keep the information confidential as it speaks to the Government’s efforts in honouring agreements with First Nations and working towards reconciliation generally.

[47]Based on the representations provided by EFN and DFO, I agree that the relationship is either fiduciary or not contrary to the public interest and that confidentiality would foster the relationship for public benefit.

[48]In light of the above, I conclude that the first sub-criterion of objective confidentiality has not been shown to be fully met for some of the information at issue. As a result, the second requirement for paragraph 20(1)(b) to apply has not been met for some of the information.

Was the information supplied by a third party to a government institution?

[49]Turning to the third criterion of paragraph 20(1)(b), I agree that most of the information appears to be information supplied from EFN to DFO, including information describing how the allocated funding will be used towards projects and activities, financial monthly budgeting amounts, budgeted amounts per DFO eligible cost categories, and financial quotes from potential suppliers for specific items and/or services. I conclude that the third requirement of this exemption is met for this type of information within the records.

[50]In Canada Post Corp. v. National Capital Commission, 2002 FCT 700, para. 14, the Federal Court found that “negotiated amounts of … financial assistance cannot be characterized as information "supplied to a government institution by a third party". Further, relevant jurisprudence in Clowater v. Canada (Industry), 2024 FC 916, para. 52, 54 holds that the “terms of a contract are considered to represent the product of negotiations and, therefore, will not ordinarily be treated as information supplied by a third party to a government institution” and that “provisions of a contract negotiated between a government institution and another party are generally not considered to be “supplied” by a third party.”

[51]The records are mutually negotiated agreements for funding between DFO and EFN. This suggests that at least some of the withheld information is co-created, and therefore is not considered supplied by the third party, including:

AICFI budget totals (i.e. p. 791, 976)
Descriptions of DFO funding conditions (i.e. p. 1200)
Other federal government funding totals or references to funding from a federal institution (p. 931-932, 934-935)
DFO Eligible Cost category descriptions (p. 1168-1169, 1547-1548)
DFO Eligible Cost category totals (p. 950, 951)

[52]I therefore conclude that the third requirement for exemption is not met for some of the withheld information, as described above.

Has the third party consistently treated the information as confidential?

[53]The final requirement for paragraph 20(1)(b) requires that the information has consistently been treated as confidential by the third party.

[54]Given that costs and descriptions pertaining to projects described within these records were previously disclosed on EFN’s public-facing website and in their newsletters, I do not accept that all of the information has been consistently treated as confidential by EFN.

[55]I do, however, accept that some of the information has been consistently treated as confidential by EFN. EFN indicated that these agreements, and specifically the detailed financial aspects of the agreements, are not shared with other band members within the nation and are negotiated only by those authorized to do so from EFN.

[56]Based on the above, I conclude that some of the information meets the requirements for exemption under paragraph 20(1)(b), specifically contribution amounts by EFN, budgetary and financial information regarding how EFN allocates the funding including salaries, activity costs as well as financial quotes from potential suppliers for specific items and/or services required in order for EFN to fulfill the obligations of its agreements with DFO. Since the information meets the requirements of the exemption, it is not necessary to examine the concurrent application of paragraph 20(1)(c) to the same information.

[57]I also come to the conclusion that the following information, where it appears in the records, does not meet the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b):

The name and/or general nature of the activity (i.e. the description of the activity or project) (p. 174, 501, 625, 665, 811, 812, 831, 850, 931, 975, 1092, 1120, 1545, 1574)
Subtotals of DFO funding allocated towards groups of activities (p. 415, 417-419, 480-482, 484, 501, 566-569, 577, 579, 581, 582, 625, 688)
The total amounts of contribution towards the activity (p. 931-932, 934-935)
AICFI budget totals (p. 791, 793, 976)
Descriptions of DFO funding conditions (i.e. p. 1200)
DFO Eligible Cost category descriptions (p. 1168, 1169, 1547, 1548)
DFO Eligible Cost category totals (p. 950, 951, 1135)
Descriptions and changes to the wording of proposed activities (p. 58)
Headers/descriptors only – not financial amounts (p. 812, 832, 834, 851, 853, 932, 934, 935, 976, 978, 979, 1030, 1094, 1097, 1121, 1124, 1201, 1204, 1394, 1397, 1410, 1445, 1574, 1576, 1578, 1579)
Information which has previously been disclosed by DFO (p. 1511-1514, 1517-1519)

[58]Since the information does not meet the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), I also examined whether DFO had properly applied paragraph 20(1)(c) to the same information on pages where the two exemptions were applied concurrently.

Paragraph 20(1)(c): financial impact on a third party

[59]Paragraph 20(1)(c) requires institutions to refuse to disclose information that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on a third party (that is, a private company or individual, but not the person who made the access request) or harm its competitive position.

[60]To claim this exemption with regard to financial impact on a third party, institutions must show the following:

Disclosing the information could result in material financial loss or gain to the third party.
There is a reasonable expectation that this harm could occur—that is, the expectation is well beyond a mere possibility.

[61]To claim this exemption with regard to competitive position, institutions must show the following:

Disclosing the information could injure the competitive position of the third party.
There is a reasonable expectation that this prejudice could occur—that is, the expectation is well beyond a mere possibility.

[62]When these requirements are met, and the third party to whom the information relates consents to its disclosure, subsection 20(5) requires institutions to reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information.

[63]In addition, when the requirements are met, subsection 20(6) requires institutions to reasonably exercise their discretion to decide whether to disclose the information for public health or public safety reasons, or to protect the environment, when both of the following circumstances (listed in subsection 20(6)) exist:

disclosure of the information would be in the public interest; and
the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any financial impact on the third party, any prejudice to the security of the third party’s structures, networks or systems, or competitive position, or any interference with its contractual or other negotiations.

[64]However, subsections 20(2) and 20(4) specifically prohibit institutions from using paragraph 20(1)(c) to refuse to disclose information that contains the results of product or environmental testing carried out by or on behalf of a government institution, unless the testing was done for a fee for an individual or an organization other than a government institution.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[65]DFO applied paragraph 20(1)(c) concurrently with paragraph 20(1)(b) on pages 527, 704, 706, 707, 931, 975, 1030, 1092, 1119, 1199, 1393, 1476.

[66]As I have accepted that the information on pages 527, 704, 706, 707, 931 (task and supplier quotes, financial information), 975, 1030 (financial information), 1092 (financial information), 1119, 1199 (costs, funding and details), 1393 and 1476 meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), I have not considered whether paragraph 20(1)(c) applies as well. The analysis regarding the application of paragraph 20(1)(c) is limited to pages 931 (details about other funding), 1030 (name of organization and project name), 1092 (information within the “Funding” box) and 1199 (information within the “Funding” box).

[67]For paragraph 20(1)(c) to apply, there must be a clear and direct connection between the disclosure of specific information and a risk of harm well beyond the merely possible or speculative (see Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3, paras. 197, 206).

[68]EFN represented that disclosing the information would impact the competitive and financial position of the Band as EFN is only one of many First Nations in the Atlantic region who negotiate funding with DFO and other government institutions to address the fishing rights of its members via AFS or capacity-development AICFI agreements. EFN indicated that the knowledge and expertise that EFN maintains and brings to discussions with DFO for negotiated agreements is essential in determining the final amount of funding or licence options.

[69]EFN argued that by disclosing the information in the records, competitors will be provided with information that may allow them to negotiate the same funding and licences as EFN.

[70]Finally, EFN represented that because there is limited funding and licences for all First Nations, disclosure of the information to competitors will result in a decrease in funding and licenses that EFN will be able to negotiate in the future and this will result in financial harm to the EFN fisheries, decreasing capacity and employment of members in the fishing operations.

[71]EFN’s arguments are speculative and lack the concrete evidence necessary to demonstrate the likelihood the alleged harm would arise. Simply knowing the source of funding, as on pages 931 and 1030, does not disclose the amount of funds received, how the funds are used, or the terms of funding. Competitors are unlikely to replicate or undermine a third party’s position based solely on the identity of the funding source. It also is unlikely to expose pricing models, cost structures, or revenue streams that could be exploited by competitors. Information within the “Funding” box on pages 1092 and 1199, does not reveal the total amount received, the terms of the funding, or how it is used. Without knowing the full financial picture, this information is not actionable or exploitable by competitors as it does not give competitors leverage or insight into cost structures or margins.

[72]DFO and EFN have not demonstrated a clear and direct connection between disclosure of the information at issue, and a risk of harm within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(c) that is well beyond the merely possible or speculative.

[73]I conclude that the information does not meet the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c).

Outcome

[74]The complaint is well founded.

Orders and recommendations

I intend to order the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to disclose information as detailed in my report for which the following exemptions were applied:

Paragraph 20(1)(b)

Disclose the information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b) on pages 58, 174, 415, 417-419, 480- 482, 484, 501, 566-569, 577, 579, 581, 582, 625, 665 688, 791, 793, 811, 812, 831, 832, 834, 850, 851, 853, 932, 934, 935, 950, 951, 976, 978, 979, 1094, 1097, 1120, 1121, 1124, 1135, 1168, 1169, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1394, 1397, 1410, 1445, 1511, 1511-1514, 1517- 1519, 1545, 1547, 1548, 1574, 1576, 1578, and 1579 as described above, with the exception of information I have found meets the requirements of subsection 19(1).

Paragraph 20(1)(c)

Disclose the information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) on pages 931, 1030, 1092 and 1199 as described above.

Initial report and notice from institution

On January 9, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans setting out my order.

On February 9, 2026, the Acting Director of the Access to Information and Privacy Division gave me notice that DFO would be implementing the order.

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. The complainant and/or institution must apply for a review within 35 business days after the date of this report. When they do not, third parties may apply for a review within the next 10 business days. Whoever applies for a review must serve a copy of the application for review to the relevant parties, as per section 43. If no one applies for a review by these deadlines, the order(s) takes effect on the 46th business day after the date of this report.

Other recipients of final report

As required by subsection 37(2), this report was provided to Eskasoni First Nation.