Decisions

The complainant alleged that Parks Canada had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), paragraphs 21(1)(a) (advice or recommendations), 21(1)(b) (accounts of consultations or deliberations) and 21(1)(c) (positions or plans developed for negotiations), and section 23 (litigation privilege) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for records related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project and communications, including internal records relating to such communications, regarding Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project, that were exchanged between the institution and the Alberta Energy Regulator. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

During the processing of their request, the complainant had expressly indicated that they were not interested in information not related to Benga Mining or the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. The Commissioner was satisfied that based on the particular facts of this case, Parks Canada was justified in not processing records, or portions thereof, which the complainant had agreed should not be considered part of the response to their request.

During the course of the investigation, Parks Canada disclosed a portion of the record initially withheld under paragraph 21(1)(a). The Information Commissioner was satisfied that the information that remained withheld under subsection 19(1), paragraph 21(1)(a) and section 23 met the criteria of the exemptions.

The complaint is well-founded.

The complainant alleged that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) had improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) (personal information), and paragraphs 20(1)(a) (third-party trade secrets), 20(1)(b) (confidential third‐party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and 20(1)(c) (financial impact on a third party) of the Access to Information Act. This was in response to an access request for correspondence between DFO and Deep Water Recovery. The complaint falls within paragraph 30(1)(a) of the Act.

The application of subsection 19(1) to withhold the records at issue was removed from the scope of the complaint. Furthermore, both DFO and the third party conceded that paragraphs 20(1)(a) and 20(1)(c) should not have been applied to withhold information.

Neither DFO nor the third party showed that the records met all the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b).

The complaint is well founded.

The Information Commissioner ordered DFO to disclose the information.

DFO gave notice that it would implement the order.