Decisions

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act for entries found in the Service Administration Log. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Indigenous Services Canada advised that at the time the response to the access request was provided, no records had been located. Indigenous Services Canada informed the Office of the Information Commissioner that 3,286 pages of records were received by Indigenous Services Canada’s access to information and privacy unit after the response had been sent to the requester.

The Information Commissioner ordered that the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada provide a new response to the complainant by May 31, 2025.

The Minister of Indigenous Services Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would be implementing the order.

The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. (OPMC) had improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) (competitive position of government institutions or negotiations by government institutions), paragraph 18(d) (government financial interests or Government of Canada’s ability to manage the economy), subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraph 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) and paragraph 20(1)(d) (negotiations by a third party) of the Access to Information Act in response to an access request. The request was for information related to the requests for proposals (RFP) by invitation DDPI-510-22-1543 and DDPI-510-22-1545. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The OPMC did not show that the information met all of the requirements of paragraphs 18(b), 18(d), 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d), and subsection 19(1). More specifically, the alleged harm is speculative in nature, and the names that were redacted under subsection 19(1) belonged to employees who received a document as part of their duties, and are subject to the exception at paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act.

The Information Commissioner ordered the OPMC to disclose the records in their entirety. The OPMC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would implement the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under 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 related to Motor Vehicle Crash Test No. TC11-232, involving a 2011 Ford Focus, and conducted on March 7, 2012. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As per subsection 20(4), preliminary testing can be subject to exemption, if the requirements for exemption are met. Transport Canada and the third parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) were met, particularly in light of the explanatory note proposed by Transport Canada. Transport Canada had originally withheld the records out of a concern that misinterpreting them could result in harm. The courts have consistently found that explanatory notes can minimise the risk of misinterpretation of records leading to harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose the records in full and include an explanatory note with the disclosure. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada had improperly withheld information under 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 related to Motor Vehicle Crash Test No. TC11-231, involving a 2011 Ford Focus, and conducted on March 15, 2012. The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

As per subsection 20(4), preliminary testing can be subject to exemption, if the requirements for exemption are met. Transport Canada and the third parties did not demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(c) were met, particularly in light of the explanatory note proposed by Transport Canada. Transport Canada had originally withheld the records out of a concern that misinterpreting them could result in harm. The courts have consistently found that explanatory notes can minimise the risk of misinterpretation of records leading to harm.

The Information Commissioner ordered that Transport Canada disclose the records in full and include an explanatory note with the disclosure. Transport Canada gave notice to the Commissioner that it would comply with the order. The complaint is well founded.