Transport Canada (Re), 2026 OIC 27

Date: 2026-02-27
OIC file number: 5823-01534
Access request number: A-2021-00768

Summary

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had 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. The request was for records relating to a workplace fatality in Point-Saint-Charles on January 6, 2021. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The complainant also alleged that Transport Canada had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. This allegation was resolved during the investigation.

Transport Canada and the third party did not establish that certain information met all the requirements of paragraphs 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c). The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose certain information withheld under these third-party exemptions. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would likely be in a position to comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

Complaint

[1]The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had 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. The request was for records relating to a workplace fatality in Point-Saint-Charles on January 6, 2021. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

[2]The complainant also alleged that Transport Canada had not conducted a reasonable search for records in response to the same access request. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Investigation

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

[4]Pursuant to paragraph 35(2)(c), the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) sought representations from the Canadian National Railway Company (CN). CN was also sent notice pursuant to section 36.6 of my intention to order the disclosure of some of the information related to it. CN did not respond to the notice.

[5]I considered the representations of the complainant, Transport Canada and CN in coming to my conclusions.

[6]During the investigation Transport Canada gave full access to some additional records, including a one-page document, 15 video files and 41 photographs. It fully withheld audio files, which it had not originally processed, under exemptions. These exemptions were investigated separately under complaint number 5825-00942, which is now concluded.

[7]During the investigation, Transport Canada decided also to rely on paragraph 16(1)(c) (conduct of investigations) and subsection 16(2) (facilitating the commission of an offence) to withhold information. More specifically, Transport Canada indicated that it was invoking paragraph 16(1)(c) to withhold witness statements and inspector’s notes it had originally withheld under third-party exemptions on pages 64-65, 73-78, 81-83, 85-90, 93-94, 97-134, 136-137, 140, 143-150, 152-212, 239-241, 245-247, 250-265, 267-268 and 273-288 and subsection 16(2) to withhold URL links and passwords on pages 35 and 62.

[8]On September 2, 2025, Transport Canada disclosed information it had initially withheld under subsection 19(1) on pages 41, 44 and 269 when it responded to the access request.

Subsection 19(1): personal information

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

[10]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).

[11]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.

[12]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?

[13]Transport Canada continued to withhold the following types of information under subsection 19(1):

• Cause of death and other medical details;
• Names and contact information for third-party employees;
• Personal information of the victim;
• Which supervisors were responsible for different tasks;
• Statements from witnesses;
• Investigation notes and interview notes; and
• Personnel files of third-party employees.

[14]I accept that this information is almost entirely the personal information of identifiable individuals. Where portions of witness statements and interview notes contain dates and generic form elements that are not handwritten by the witness or could otherwise be used to identify the witness, Transport Canada confirmed subsection 19(1) was not applied to withhold such information.

[15]I also accept that none of the information falls under any of the exceptions to the definition of personal information set out in the Privacy Act.

[16]The witness statements and interview notes withheld in this case are almost entirely handwritten. As a result, portions are difficult to read, and no factual or non-personal information could be identified within these types of records. I accept that any disclosure of the content of these records, apart from the elements of generic forms and dates, would reveal personal information about the victim and other third-party employees. Since the information is all about the victim, who is identifiable, the requirements of subsection 19(1) are met for these witness statements and interview notes.

[17]I conclude that the information meets the requirements of subsection 19(1).

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

[18]Since the information meets the requirements of subsection 19(1), Transport Canada 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.

[19]Under paragraph 19(2)(a), Transport Canada was required to determine whether consent was provided by making reasonable efforts to seek consent from the individuals whose personal information appears in the records. Transport Canada asserted that it was not reasonable to seek consent under the circumstances, based on the number of individuals involved and the difficulty of contacting them. I find Transport Canada’s position to be reasonable in this case.

[20]Under paragraph 19(2)(b), Transport Canada’s discretion would have been triggered if any of the personal information was publicly available. Transport Canada confirmed that it searched for publicly available information and released it where it found its discretion was triggered under paragraph 19(2)(b). Since this information was released, it is not at issue here, so I find Transport Canada’s discretion was not triggered under paragraph 19(2)(b) for the information at issue.

[21]Discretion is also triggered under paragraph 19(2)(c) when the disclosure would be in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act. Given that the records relate to a workplace fatality, the OIC asked whether Transport Canada considered subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act, which would allow Transport Canada to disclose personal information if the “public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure”. Transport Canada indicated that it considered this provision and determined that no clear interest to the general public was evident, so disclosure of the personal information would not clearly outweigh the fundamental right of privacy of the individuals. I find Transport Canada’s position to be a reasonable one, as I find none of the personal information would shed significant light on the issues that resulted in the accident. Since the details relevant to the accident have already been released or are publicly available, a general public interest in further disclosure would not seem to clearly outweigh the invasion of those individuals’ privacy.

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

[23]Since the information meets the requirements of subsection 19(1) and Transport Canada did not have discretion to release the information under subsection 19(2), I did not examine the other exemptions Transport Canada applied to the same information.

Paragraph 16(1)(c): conduct of investigations

[24]Paragraph 16(1)(c) allows institutions to refuse to disclose information that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to harm federal or provincial law enforcement or the conduct of investigations (for example, information about the existence of an investigation that would reveal the identity of a confidential source or that was obtained during an investigation, as set out in subparagraphs 16(1)(c)(i) to (iii)).

[25]To claim this exemption with regard to the enforcement of federal or provincial laws, institutions must show the following:

• Disclosing the information could harm the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province.
• There is a reasonable expectation that this harm could occur—that is, the expectation is well beyond a mere possibility.

[26]To claim this exemption with regard to the conduct of investigations, institutions must show the following:

• disclosing the information could harm the conduct of lawful investigations—that is, investigations that are within the authority of an institution and are one of the following:
  • being conducted to administer or enforce an Act of Parliament or authorized under such an Act; or
  • of the types described in Schedule II of the Access to Information Regulations.

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

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[28]During the investigation, Transport Canada indicated that it was invoking paragraph 16(1)(c) to withhold information obtained or prepared in the course of an investigation on pages 64-65, 73-78, 81-83, 85-90, 93-94, 97-134, 136-137, 140, 143-150, 152-212, 239-241, 245-247, 250-265, 267-268 and 273-288 of the response, which consist of witness statements and investigators’ notes. Much of this information is personal information I have found to meet the requirements of subsection 19(1).

[29]For the balance of the information, I accept that this information was obtained or prepared in the course of the fatality investigation, which was a lawful investigation carried out by Transport Canada.

[30]Transport Canada asserted that disclosure would harm the integrity and effectiveness of investigations conducted by virtue of Part II of the Canada Labour Code and undertaken to prevent future accidents from occurring in the course of employment. Transport Canada further asserted that disclosure “could impair candor and collaboration by the employees & witnesses in the future, should they know that their statement could be release [sic], either in part or in full”. With respect to disclosure impairing the candor of witnesses, I have already found the witness statements and interview notes in this case to be exempt from disclosure as personal information.

[31]With respect to the dates and generic form elements on these pages which Transport Canada indicated it is not withholding under subsection 19(1), I am not convinced that disclosure of this information could result in the harms described by Transport Canada under paragraph 16(1)(c).

[32]The representations provided by Transport Canada fall short of demonstrating a reasonable expectation that probable harm to investigations could result from the disclosure of any of the withheld information I have not already found to be exempt.

[33]I conclude that the information does not meet the requirements of paragraph 16(1)(c).

Subsection 16(2): facilitating the commission of an offence

[34]Subsection 16(2) allows institutions to refuse to disclose information that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence.

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

• Disclosing the information (for example, information on criminal methods or techniques, or technical details of weapons, as set out in paragraphs 16(2)(a) to (c)) could facilitate the commission of an offence.
• There is a reasonable expectation that this harm could occur—that is, the expectation is well beyond a mere possibility.

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

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[37]During the investigation, Transport Canada invoked subsection 16(2) to withhold URL links and passwords on pages 35 and 62.

[38]These links point to CN’s web server, and Transport Canada asserted that disclosure of the links and passwords “could prejudice the vulnerability of the computer system by facilitating the commission of an offence, such as unauthorized access to the system”. I accept that the links and passwords could reasonably be used to facilitate the commission of such an offence.

[39]I conclude that the information meets the requirements of subsection 16(2).

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

[40]Since the information meets the requirements of subsection 16(2), Transport Canada was required to reasonably exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. In doing so, Transport Canada had to consider all the relevant factors for and against disclosure.

[41]Transport Canada did not provide any information indicating that it had considered its obligation to exercise its discretion to decide whether to disclose the information. I must conclude that Transport Canada did not show that it had reasonably exercised its discretion.

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

[42]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).

[43]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.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[44]Transport Canada applied paragraph 20(1)(b) to the following information, where I have not already found subsection 19(1) to apply:

• Correspondence with CN related to the accident (pages 35-39, 45-60, 62-63, 218-219, 222-227, 234-238, 289-290, 300-302);
• Generic form elements and dates in statements from witnesses (pages 59, 64-65, 161-167, 239-241, 245-247, 267-268);
• Dates and prepared questions within investigation notes and interview notes (pages 102-137, 143-160, 168, 172-175, 180, 183-186, 188-190, 192, 194-197, 199-212, 250-266, 273, 275-279 and 282-287);
• References to work done by Transport Canada employees and internal Transport Canada emails (pages 61, 213-217, 220-221, 223, 231-232);
• Transport Canada correspondence requesting records (pages 233);
• Completed Transport Canada forms (pages 228-230, 291-294);
• Transport Canada’s analysis of the data provided by CN and the data itself (pages 270-272);
• CN bulletins, meeting minutes, operating manuals and other internal CN internal documents (pages 295-299, 303-635, 723-768);
• Work order lists, status report form, work order messages, work order details, switch lists, supplemental work order form (pages 636-696); and
• Data from the re-enactment (pages 715-720, 723-768).

[45]CN indicated that the records contain “detailed technical and commercial information in respect of CN operations, safety practices, human resources and training, asset management, and logistics.” I accept that much of the withheld information relates to CN-specific procedures and processes, making some of it commercial or technical information meeting the first requirement of the exemption.

[46]It should be noted that the fact that CN’s operations have a commercial purpose, does not render all information related to CN’s operations commercial information, within the ordinary meaning of that term. Such a broad interpretation was rejected in Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board) et al., 2006 FCA 157 at para. 69, where the Federal Court of Appeal explained:

[T]he word “commercial” connotes information which in itself pertains to trade (or commerce). It does not follow that merely because NAV CANADA is in the business of providing air navigation services for a fee, the data or information collected during an air flight may be characterized as “commercial”.

[47]Consequently, I am not convinced that some of the withheld information meets this first requirement of the exemption. More specifically, it is not clear how certain generic elements within the records meet this requirement. Such information is found within the records on pages 35-39, 45-63, 102-137, 143-168, 172-175, 214-215, 217-224, 226-238, 289-294 and 535-542, and includes email headers, salutations, government forms, dates, document names and general statements. Such information is also found within the minutes of meetings on pages 355-488. More specifically, the cover pages, general details of the agendas, number and categories of accidents, indications of no accidents occurring and the dates of meetings on these pages. I find this information does not meet the first requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b).

[48]The second requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b) is that the information be confidential by an objective standard. As a result, a party claiming that information is confidential under paragraph 20(1)(b) must establish that each of the following conditions are met:

• the content of the record is not available from sources otherwise accessible to the public or obtainable by observation or independent study by a member of the public acting on their own;
• the information originates and is communicated in a reasonable expectation of confidence that it will not be disclosed; and
• the information, whether provided by law or supplied voluntarily, be communicated in a relationship between government and the third party that is either a fiduciary relationship or one that is not contrary to the public interest, and that will be fostered for the public benefit by confidential communication. (see Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport), (1989) 27 FTR 194 (F.C.T.D.); see also: Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 (Merck), para. 133).

[49]There are several sources of public information relating to the accident online:

• https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2021/r21d0001/r21d0001.html
• https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/transportation-safety-board-finds-employees-were-not-following-protocols-when-conductor-died-1.5705155
• https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/five-lives-lost-workers-at-cn-raise-safety-alarm-after-string-of-rail-deaths-1.5472631
• https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2021/06/16/securite-a-la-gare-de-triage-de-pointe-saint-charles-des-travailleurs-du-cn-sonnent-lalarme

[50]The publicly available information includes certain details of what occurred, the relevant CN rules, and that certain records were created after the accident.

[51]I also note that some of the safety bulletins found within the records, on pages 310-337, are informing CN employees of changes to the Canadian Rail Operating Rules, which Transport Canada makes public. The content of these bulletins is therefore not objectively confidential.

[52]CN argued that the context of the disclosure in the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) report (linked in the first bullet above) is relevant to whether it should be disclosed in response to this request. With respect to the information in the TSB report, CN points to the disclaimers located at the beginning of the report. Although such disclaimers may be relevant to the harm that could result from disclosure, I am not convinced that the absence of such disclaimers makes the information any less publicly available in the context of assessing objective confidentiality under paragraph 20(1)(b).

[53]To the extent that portions of the withheld information are publicly available, I am not convinced that the public information is objectively confidential. Such information is found on pages 215-216, 221, 223, 228, 232-233, 295-298, 300, 310-337 and 535-542. In light of this, it was unnecessary to consider whether the publicly available information meets the second and third conditions of objective confidentiality.

[54]Based on a thorough review of the records and comparable investigations into rail industry fatalities, I accept that the majority of the information at issue originated and was communicated with a reasonable expectation that it would not be disclosed. In the present case, most of the information provided by CN to Transport Canada is not directly tied to the cause of the accident, and demonstrates an open sharing of information requested during the investigation. Apart from information directly related to the cause of the accident, most of which I have already found to be public, I am satisfied this condition of objective confidentiality is met. The one exception is the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance on pages 291-294. This record outlines safety improvements CN has committed to making in response to the accident and as such I am not convinced this information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b).

[55]Finally, I am satisfied that the non-public information was communicated within the context of a relationship between the third party and Transport Canada that would be fostered for public benefit by the communication’s confidentiality. Rather than relating to safety concerns tied to the accident, the non-public information provided with a reasonable expectation of confidence is CN’s commercial and technical information, shared with Transport Canada to provide context surrounding CN-specific health and safety measures.

[56]Based on the above, it has not been established that the second requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b) is met where the withheld information is publicly available or directly related to the cause of the accident.

[57]Turning to the third requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b), I find that some of the information at issue was not supplied to a government institution by a third party. While some records clearly originate with CN and other records may have been prepared with the benefit of observations made of CN’s operations and with the benefit of information provided by CN, that is not sufficient to render all of the information at issue “supplied by” CN. The case law under paragraph 20(1)(b) has repeatedly distinguished between information supplied by a third party and independent observations made based on information that has been supplied (see, for example: Merck, at paras. 152‐158; Canada (Transport) v. Air Transat A.T. Inc., 2019 FCA 286, paras. 71-81).

[58]Accordingly, the third requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b) is not met where the information was not directly supplied by a third party. I find this to be the case for portions of communications originating from Transport Canada, Transport Canada form elements, dates noted by investigators, interview questions, portions of bulletins originating from Transport Canada, as well as Transport Canada’s internal emails and documents. This information is found on pages 36-39, 45-58, 61, 161-167, 213-224, 226-241, 245-247, 267-268, 270-271 (the title, what Transport Canada did to manipulate the data, what Transport Canada decided to focus on, Transport Canada’s analysis), 283-287, 289-294 and 310-337.

[59]Turning to the final requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b), based on CN’s representations, I accept that CN has consistently treated its information as confidential, with the exception of safety bulletins it issued to employees with no apparent restrictions on how those bulletins could be shared outside of the organization, which are withheld on pages 295-299, 303-343 and 489-534.

I conclude that the information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), except for the following:

• Information not meeting the first requirement of the exemption:
• Portions of pages 35 and 62, other than the passwords and URLs;
• General identifying information on pages 36-39, 45-58, 60-63, 214-215, 218-224, 226-238, 289-294;
• Template form elements on pages 228-230;
• The generic portions on pages 535-542 (logos, titles, headings, dates, page numbers);
• The following portions of meeting minutes on pages 355-488:
  • Cover pages;
  • General details of the agenda (opening, closing, number of items discussed);
  • The number and category of accidents;
  • That inspection reports and recommendations were on the agenda;
  • That no accidents/incidents of certain types were discussed; and
  • Dates of meetings.
    • The publicly available information on pages 215-216, 221, 223, 228, 232-233, 295-298, 300-301, 310-337 and 535-542;
    • Assurance of Voluntary Compliance on pages 291-294;
    • Record request on page 233;
    • Information not supplied by CN on pages 36-39, 45-58, 61, 161-167, 213-224, 226-241, 245-247, 267-268, 270-271 (the title, what Transport Canada did to manipulate the data, what Transport Canada decided to focus on, Transport Canada’s analysis), 283-287, 289-294 and 310-337;
    • Safety-related communications on pages 295-299, 303-343, 489-534.

[60]Since some of the information meets the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), I did not examine the other exemptions Transport Canada applied to the same information.

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

[61]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.

[62]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.

[63]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.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[64]Transport Canada withheld the same information detailed above under paragraph 20(1)(c) concurrently with paragraph 20(1)(b).

[65]CN indicated that disclosure of the investigator’s analysis and conclusions could be damaging. CN also asserted that disclosure could lead to CN being seen as responsible for an accident.

[66]I note that the courts have been skeptical of arguments relating to public misunderstanding, because it could undermine the fundamental purpose of access to information legislation – which is to give the public access to information so that the public may evaluate the information, and not to protect the public from the information (see: Merck, para 224).

[67]CN asserted that the harm would not result from misunderstanding, but from taking the inspector’s findings as laying blame on CN. In its representations, CN cited the findings in Canadian National Railway v. Teamsters Canada Railways Conference, 2013 OHSTC 5. The harm identified by CN would seem to be harm to its reputation and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in litigation against CN. I note that the stay granted in Canadian National Railway v. Teamsters Canada Railways Conference, 2013 OHSTC 5 ended in an eventual dismissal of CN’s appeal and order to post the unredacted direction containing the Health and Safety Officer’s conclusions as to the cause of the accident (see: Canadian National Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2013 OHSTC 29). Despite this, CN identified no harm that resulted from that direction being posted.

[68]As far as harm to CN’s reputation in this specific case, I find CN’s argument is speculative, without any supporting evidence.

[69]On the matter of litigation, other than in cases with significant supporting evidence, the courts have ruled that paragraph 20(1)(c) “was not intended to cover litigation costs and damage awards” (see: Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2005 FC 1633, para. 54; Hutton v. Canada (Minister of Natural Resources), 1997 CanLII 5581, para. 3). I am not convinced that the information related to CN meets the requirements of the exemption on the basis of litigation, as CN has not provided sufficient evidence to support its position.

[70]CN referred to protections under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its representations, but did not provide sufficient detail to establish how section 7 relates to the requirements of this or any other exemption.

[71]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, paras. 197, 206).

[72]CN has 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]Any link to such harm would seem to be diminished by the public availability of some of the information, which CN has not indicated as having caused it harm.

[74]Transport Canada indicated that it feels it can no longer sustain the application of paragraph 20(1)(c).

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

Subsection 24(1): disclosure restricted by another law

[76]Subsection 24(1) requires institutions to refuse to disclose information the disclosure of which is restricted by a provision set out in Schedule II of the Access to Information Act.

Does the information meet the requirements of the exemption?

[77]Transport Canada did not apply subsection 24(1) to any information, however, CN indicated in its representations to Transport Canada that the information is protected under subsection 144(3) of the Canada Labour Code, which is a Schedule II provision.

[78]For this provision to apply, the information must relate to any “secret process or trade secret”. CN has not identified where any such information appears within the record. Transport Canada considered whether any of the information would qualify as secret process or trade secrets and indicated that it does not find this to be the case.

[79]I conclude that the information does not meet the requirements of subsection 24(1).

Reasonable search

[80]Transport Canada 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.

[81]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.

[82]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?

[83]During the investigation, Transport Canada identified and processed some additional photographs and video files and a one-page document that it had not included in its response to the request.

[84]Audio recordings responsive to the request had also not been provided to the complainant as part of the response, nor was the complainant informed that such recordings were being withheld under any exemptions. Transport Canada has now processed the audio recordings related to the request and provided a supplementary response to the complainant, fully withholding the audio recordings under subsection 19(1). A separate investigation into the exemption of the audio recordings is now concluded (OIC file 5825-00942).

[85]Following these additional responses, I am satisfied that Transport Canada searched for responsive records in the relevant corporate repositories and has now processed all of the records it found and provided responses to the complainant, either giving access to these records or invoking exemptions to withhold them.

[86]I conclude that Transport Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records when it responded to the request, but that the matter is now resolved.

Outcome

[87]The complaint is well founded.

Orders

I order the Minister of Transport to do the following:

1. Disclose the generic form elements and dates on pages 59, 64-65, 102-137, 143-168, 172-175, 180, 183-186, 188-190, 192, 194-197, 199-212, 228-230, 239-241, 245-247, 250-268, 273, 275-279 and 282-287;
2. Disclose the information withheld under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c) on the following pages, other than where I have found subsections 16(2) or 19(1) to apply to the same information:
3. Information not meeting the first requirement of paragraph 20(1)(b):
   1. Portions of pages 35 and 62, other than the password and URL;
   2. General identifying information on pages 36-39, 45-58, 60-63, 214-215, 218-224, 226-238, 289-294;
   3. Template form elements on pages 228-230;
   4. The generic portions on pages 535-542 (logos, titles, headings, dates, page numbers);
   5. The following portions of the documents on pages 355-488:
      • Cover pages;
      • General details of the agenda (opening, closing, number of items discussed);
      • The number and category of accidents;
      • That inspection reports and recommendations were on the agenda;
      • That no accidents/incidents of certain types were discussed; and
      • Dates of meetings.
4. The publicly available information on pages 215-216, 221, 223, 228, 232-233, 295-298, 300-301, 310-337 and 535-542;
5. Assurance of Voluntary Compliance on pages 291-294;
6. Record request on page 233;
7. Information not supplied by CN on pages 36-39, 45-58, 61, 161-167, 213-224, 226-241, 245-247, 267-268, 270-271 (the title, what Transport Canada did to manipulate the data, what Transport Canada decided to focus on, Transport Canada’s analysis), 283-287, 289-294 and 310-337;
8. Safety-related announcements on pages 295-299, 303-343, 489-534.
9. Re-exercise his discretion under subsection 16(2) to decide whether to disclose the passwords and links on pages 35 and 62.

Initial report and notice from institution

On January 12, 2026, I issued my initial report to the Minister of Transport setting out my orders.

On February 10, 2026, Transport Canada’s Manager, Access to Information and Privacy gave me notice that Transport Canada will likely be in a position to comply with the order.

I remind the Minister that, if he does not intend to fully implement my order, he must apply to the Federal Court for a review by the deadline set out below.

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 recipient of final report

As required by subsection 37(2), this report was provided to CN.